Thoughts on Damage Model

[Saxman]

I do have a question about updating the damage model. As I understand the current damage model there is no graduation on a components strength, so it's 100% until it's destroyed. As an example let's say the left wing on an F6F-5 requires X amount of damage before it is destroyed. I am flying along with my usual bad SA, and someone shoots my left wing (doesn't matter with what gun) doing X/2 damage. I think that the damage model should reduce the amount of loading the left wing can take before it fails, ie structural failure at 3.5g's vs 7g's for an undamaged wing.

Of course the percentages would have to be worked out and such, but it would certainly make it more interesting. Also the damage list would need to probably show the condition as well so that I know not to stress the plane so much. I think it could be as simple as having an item change color to show how badly it's damaged.

Perhaps something like this;

• Left Wing- 0% damage
• Left Wing- 1-33% damaged
• Left Wing- 34-66% damaged
• Left Wing- 67-99% damaged
• Left Wing- 100% destroyed

Baumer,

I'd say reduced G-loading would be more appropriate for the main spar than the wing itself.

[Baumer]

I understand, I was just using a component that we have on the current damage list as an example. I expect that the damage list to expand as part of the model update, but I wanted to address the current issue of "all or none" damage in a way that was clear and concise.

[rabbidrabbit]

The structural strength of a structure is the sum of all of the parts.  Are you saying the skin, being riveted in place, does nothing to add strength to the other components?  I don't think the facts back you up.

[Knite]

Just as a thought, instead of a whole revamp, how about just a change in the indicator for the time being? At least to see just how a revamp as being discussed would matter? I.e. Apply Baumer's color code so we can see what kind of shape our aircraft is in, but not actually have any damage effects other than what we have now? That could help us see... just how shot up ARE we, and should the performance be impacted?

[rabbidrabbit]

I don't think your summary is accurate, nor is your following description of likely result.  Your summary is only rational if the existing damage model was 100% destruction or nothing and that is obviously not the case.  What he is asking for is incremental damage to aircraft/vehicles.

I'm not speaking for any other but I'm saying that an effort to increase the level of reality in the damage model would be in everyone's interest.  This can be done by identifying more subsystems and by adding incremental damage to current ones.  All of these actions increase immersion and the general credibility of the game.  If done correctly, I don't see how this would materially effect gameplay on the larger scale.  Sure, each fight might have somewhat different outcomes but overall, as long as the damage incurred is reasonable, there will be little negative side effect.  The current system seems somewhat reasonable but just significantly lacking in realism.

My basic point being that changes would have some impact since things will be somewhat different but it's an irrelevant argument if the new damage model is at least as realistic as the current one.  This is not a difficult hurdle to overcome. 

Summed up you want to have MG and cannon equipped planes be able to cripple a plane/GV so it is easier to get the kill after you ping him up - got it

If everything in this game were modeled accuratly as far as damage was concerned it would make it less fun to play.

Nobody would fly Bombers

....why?

They are already easy enough to kill.  If you mad it any easier then nobody would take the time to fly it.

Nobody would drive any GV's

.....why?

Same as the buffs.  Imagine panzers being taken out by a few passes of .50's.  As it did happen in the RW.

If this happened I would not play so often as well as gv any longer.


Damage is based upon what makes it fun enough to pay to play. 

[OOZ662]

Nobody would fly Bombers

....why?

They are already easy enough to kill.  If you mad it any easier then nobody would take the time to fly it.

Just because nobody knows how to use the guns any more or how to fly doesn't mean bombers are easy to kill.

Nobody would drive any GV's

.....why?

Same as the buffs.  Imagine panzers being taken out by a few passes of .50's.  As it did happen in the RW.

I'd like to see this one backed up. In cases of rounds that actually did kill tanks (Il-2 guns, 40mms), sure. .50s? Not so sure about that on the tanks we have in-game. A Panzer II or III, maybe.

[Stoney]

I do have a question about updating the damage model. As I understand the current damage model there is no graduation on a components strength, so it's 100% until it's destroyed. As an example let's say the left wing on an F6F-5 requires X amount of damage before it is destroyed. I am flying along with my usual bad SA, and someone shoots my left wing (doesn't matter with what gun) doing X/2 damage. I think that the damage model should reduce the amount of loading the left wing can take before it fails, ie structural failure at 3.5g's vs 7g's for an undamaged wing.

Of course the percentages would have to be worked out and such, but it would certainly make it more interesting. Also the damage list would need to probably show the condition as well so that I know not to stress the plane so much. I think it could be as simple as having an item change color to show how badly it's damaged.

Perhaps something like this;

• Left Wing- 0% damage
• Left Wing- 1-33% damaged
• Left Wing- 34-66% damaged
• Left Wing- 67-99% damaged
• Left Wing- 100% destroyed

So, If I did catch a squirt of cannons in the wing on my way to a big fight, I'd need to RTB and get a new plane, just to make sure I didn't rip my wings off in some high-G maneuver later.  I'm not sure I like that idea.  Not to mention that as a pilot, you'd have almost no idea what the condition of your spar is since its buried under the skin.  If there's a hole big enough for you to see your spar, its probably time to land anyway.  A lot of these planes had multiple spars as well, how would that be addressed?

That being said, I do like the color coding for the damaged components, although I think green/yellow/red would be more than adequate.

[ToeTag]

Just because nobody knows how to use the guns any more or how to fly doesn't mean bombers are easy to kill.

Also I didn't say they were easy.  I said they are easy enough to kill.  Meaning there is some skill to it.

I'd like to see this one backed up. In cases of rounds that actually did kill tanks (Il-2 guns, 40mms), sure. .50s? Not so sure about that on the tanks we have in-game. A Panzer II or III, maybe.

Besides their bomb and rocket payloads, the P-47 and the Typhoon both boasted powerful gun armaments. The Typhoon had four 20mm Hispano cannon. The P-47 carried eight .50 cal. machine guns with 400 rounds per gun, and it proved "particularly successful" against transports. The machine guns occasionally even caused casualties to tanks and tank crews. The .50 cal. armor-piercing bullets often penetrated the underside of vehicles after ricocheting off the road, or penetrated the exhaust system of the tanks, ricocheting around the interior of the armored hull, killing or wounding the crew and sometimes igniting the fuel supply or detonating ammunition storage. This seemed surprising at first, given the typically heavy armor of German tanks. Yet Maj. Gen. J. Lawton "Lightning Joe" Collins, Commander of First Army's VII Corps, was impressed enough to mention to Quesada the success that P-47s had strafing tanks with .50 cal. machine gun fire.

Further more the M3 is the main culprett for my statment.  They are as hard to kill as a M8.  My tank rounds bounced off the sides 3 times yeesterday at 800.  WTF...he was sitting still.  The shermans that were spawning in got one shot and boom. 

Another sortie I was 10 feet from a M3 and shooting him right in the drivers compartment with .50. Nothing happened.  I put atleast 150 rounds into him before he drove away through some trees.  This occasion he wsa also sitting still.

Back to my point if M3's were as vulnerable to fire as they really were in RL nobody would bother to up them.  I'm certain that these two guys were rolling on the floor as they were sneaking away.

[hitech]

if the new damage model is at least as realistic as the current one.  This is not a difficult hurdle to overcome. 

I do so love how the people who do not need to create new items like to judge the difficulty it is to create. Let me know when you have it written, and all the tools written to implement the change,  and all values new damage values filled for all the planes. Then send me the code & data, or at least send me a cost of estimate since you have such a large knowledge of ease of implementation.

HiTech

[rabbidrabbit]

For some reason, I was under the impression you were the one getting paid to put together a product.  If you don't feel up to it, I'm sure it could be sub contracted out.  By modern standards, the current model isn't particularly realistic.  That doesn't mean it wasn't put together with good intent nor does it mean it did not take considerable effort. All systems of this magnitude will obviously take substantial effort but improving the product increases business.  Deciding where to employ the resources one has is part of business.

If you want to take arrogant jabs at others don't be surprised when they return the favor.  It would be easier on everyone if all refrained from such action since it serves no ones best interest.  My comment had nothing to do with how you chose to interpret it.

[Anaxogoras]

Too funny.

[Saxman]

Hm, the latest update specifies FUEL fire times have been changed. I wonder if there's a potential for airframe or engine fires in the future..

[Karnak]

The .50 cal. armor-piercing bullets often penetrated the underside of vehicles after ricocheting off the road, or penetrated the exhaust system of the tanks, ricocheting around the interior of the armored hull, killing or wounding the crew and sometimes igniting the fuel supply or detonating ammunition storage.

This is, 100%, absolute myth and any basic physics proves it is impossible.  A .50 cal round striking at a 90% angle, without having lost velocity, been deformed, tumbling and hitting at a very shallow angle from ricocheting off of the ground, would be unable to pierce the belly armor of a Panzer IV.

In British examinations of German tanks destroyed by aircraft they found that almost all of them were destroyed by bombs, some by rockets and a very, very, very few by 20mm cannon fire.  None were destroyed by anything lighter that.

[Anaxogoras]

Karnak is correct.  That is a disproved History channel myth.

[Plawranc]

I agree

POWER TO THE BB GUNS.

The 303 in ww2 had hollowpoint explosive ammo. This tore through 109s and Heinkels good enough but it barely scratches ANYTHING in AH2. We need to power up the 303's and the 50's so we dont have to RTB when we run out of cannon