Damage model and visual damage on the plane

[nugetx]

Can the damage model and visual damage of the plane be brought to the standards of the flight model?

I love the flight model, but the damage model is not on the same level as the flight model.

[FLS]

I think there are too many variables for damage to be as accurate. Also it seems pointless without full systems modelling which would kill your frame rate in an MMOG.

[EagleDNY]

I tend to think that if you are in a position to see really grievous and visually interesting damage to your aircraft you are either a) too busy to see it because you are trying to avoid more, or b) already dead. 

[puller]

Can the damage model and visual damage of the plane be brought to the standards of the flight model?

I love the flight model, but the damage model is not on the same level as the flight model.

Guess you've never landed a shot up plane...You can see the damage just fine...You can see planes shedding pieces as you shoot them too...But you would know that If you've played

[puller]

One step further...In WWI you can see the BB holes in the canvas as you shoot guys...But...If you have played you would have seen them...

[Ack-Ack]

The damage effects could do with better graphical representation.  Also things like the flaps acting as though they are in a jammed position instead of destroyed like ailerons and elevators are.

[oboe]

The P-39's graphical damage representation is EXCELLENT.  I don't know how many other planes have this but I wish HTC had continued the practice with the new models.   Instead of the damaged piece being removed entirely, it is replaced with an image of the damaged piece - you see missing surface skin, exposed ribs, etc.   Very cool.

[Krusty]

That is the new standard, however there are still certain "resolution" issues with the damage.

Example: Flaps are "shot off" visually but "jammed" effectively.

Example: Rudder is "shot off" visually and "ripped off" effectively.

Example: Bullet holes represent how many hits a wing has taken, and bigger holes indicate more hits in one smaller area, BUT there are only (let's say) 4 areas per wing, and once that area is gone it takes the wing with it. I'd honestly love a more detailed flight physics that says you can blow a hole in the wing, an actual hole, lose the lift it would produce but still fly (situation depending). As long as it's not like the nonsense modelling that the UbiSoft franchise created.

I just don't think that would work. It would take a lot of processing, a lot of sharing that information and various states of various parts, and a lot more traffic back and forth to represent what you were seeing on other planes.

In the short-run, the system we have is looking pretty good. In the long run I hope it gets some improvements.

[oboe]

Some of them make it home, amazingly!   The only info I have on this picture is: "5 January 1945  1stLt Fred Eberle, 333rdFS, 318thFG".   Pretty clearly AA damage though.

I was disappointed to note the new Ki.61 doesn't have the new damage model standard.   From what I've seen, if an aileron or elevator is damaged, the whole piece is just removed from the graphical representation of the plane. 

Haven't had an opportunity to check it out on the Val or Kate yet - for me at least, taking damage while in one of those birds tends to be quickly catastrophic.

[Wiley]

Example: Bullet holes represent how many hits a wing has taken, and bigger holes indicate more hits in one smaller area, BUT there are only (let's say) 4 areas per wing, and once that area is gone it takes the wing with it. I'd honestly love a more detailed flight physics that says you can blow a hole in the wing, an actual hole, lose the lift it would produce but still fly (situation depending). As long as it's not like the nonsense modelling that the UbiSoft franchise created.

I'd like to see something along those lines too, but the amount of information sharing between all the computers involved would be much larger than currently.  Your FE would need to know exactly where your plane was hit to create that hole and react accordingly.

I still would really like to see non-lethal damage have an effect on the plane.  A wing at 99% damage still functions as though it's factory fresh until that last 1% is gone.  With the same information currently going between all the computers, it could be changed so the damaged areas were less effective.  I think that would be a major step forward in the modeling, but I recall a post where HT disagreed, feeling that it would just mean people would spray other planes at every chance just to degrade their performance.  He sees it as a downside, to me that feels like gameplay.

One thing that I think should definitely be fixed though is the way flaps react.  If all it can be is jammed, show the flap still there.  A flap that is visually gone but still affecting the plane is simply confusing and should not be.

Wiley.

[Krusty]

Exactly. It's not a simple solution. Also note that WTs graphics, modeled after UbiSoft's IL2 graphics, depicting wing damage simply use an alpha layer showing "through" the wing but also are not tied to actual damage either. It's also just a rough representation of actual hits and IMO not as realistic. People like to cite them, but their damage model is arbitrary and only representative as well. You don't find high-fidelity damage models that track intricate damage details in mainly online games. Too much to transmit, to track, to keep track of. Most in the past that have done that are offline ones or games with major offline components to them. When you're offline you only have to track your own status, and only display your own.

[Wiley]

I haven't wrung out WT and IL2 all that much, but it always looked to me like it was just that the damage artwork was higher detail.  If you shoot up a guy's wingtip from 3 different angles it still looks the same.  Is that not the case?  It's either damaged or not damaged, isn't it?

Wiley.