simple questions...

[Hooligan]

Ah hazed, so you just have a "feeling" that some things are wrong, but no actual data.  Why exactly do think HTC would pay any attention to this?

Hooligan

[Kweassa]

It's a Damage Modelling issue.

 ..

 ps) I shot a P-38 at 200 yards with a Mk108, single round.
       It landed on the left wingroot/engine area. I thought he
       was down.

       I got his engine oil. Boy.. that wing root area sure is tough.

[Urchin]

Hooligan...  

Who presented factual data that the N1K2 was retaining to much energy (this may actually be a poor example)?

Who presented factual data comparing the weight in pounds of our P47-D11 before it was adjusted to the weight of the real plane?  How did they get this data?  It isn't available in game, as far as I know.  

Who presented factual data that the F4U-1C was underweight?  How did they get this information again (I Still haven't found it in game yet)?  

As an addendum:

Who presented factual evidence that the P38 was not tough enough?  Is there such a thing as factual evidence in a case like that?  

Who presented evidence that the F6F's stall was to 'vicious'?  Again... is there a book that I haven't read that gave HTC the information to convince them that they had modelled the stall wrong?  

There are a MULTITUDE of things that we have NO factual data for.  Climb rate, level speed at most altitudes, fuel and ammo capacity- we can look those up.  

Diving performance?  I mean EXACT, FACTUAL diving performance too, not general statements like ' The X4F67 will pull away from the FR456W initially, but the FR456W will catch up and eventually pass the lighter X4F67 in a sustained dive' -  I want 'The X4F67 will go from 300 to 350 mph in 4.6 seconds when diving at a 60 degree attitude at a starting altitude of 27,500 feet'.

Can you point out where I can find information like that?  I'm no military historian, so perhaps you (being one, I presume) can tell me where to find the more exotic material on the planes we have modelled.  

How about acceleration?  I've got a few books on WW2 aircraft, some of them are even quite 'academic'... but none of them list the time it takes the planes to go from speed X to speed Y at altitude Z... where can I get that information?  

Zoom performance?  I hate to sound like a broken tape... but none of the books I personally have give information on the altitude the various planes gained when zooming from a dive of any speed.   Where can I get that information also?  I mean.. I get generalities like "the P47 could outzoom any LW aircraft when diving from the same altitude"... but it doesnt say how MUCH it outzooms the LW plane there.  Did it gain a thousand feet in the zoom?  Ten thousand feet?  Four inches?  It would gain in all those circumstances... but it would still get shot to hell in the last one, wouldn't it?  

As I am trying to point out, all most of us have to go on is feelings.  In general I'd say most of the feelings are quite accurate, and point out potential problems that should be looked at, at the very least.  For instance.. it is my FEELING that the M8 and PanzerIV really need to be looked at, because they are quite easily incapacitated and even destroyed by what amounts to small arms fire (I had a Ostwind blow my tank up using just his 7.92mm hull mounted MG, while he absorbed 6 hits of 75mm AP and innumerable rounds of 12.7mm coax MG fire.. I have a FEELING something is a little off here).

[MrLars]

Originally posted by Nefarious
But there has been many times where I get ignited, only to fight for and sometimes kill for a few minutes, while on fire.

I think the zeke has a reasonable Damage Model as does the Spit.

I've been called a kill stealer many times chasing down a Zero that's on fire...unlike the other planes in AH, you have to make sure that flaming ball of fire is missing vital parts before terminating your attack.

[Hooligan]

Okay Urchin:

F4UDOA produced navy performance charts for various models of the F4U.  Pyro noticed that the AH 1C did not match the new data in weight and corrected it.

Acceleration figures. dive and climb performance etc...  for US fighters can be found in AHT ("America's Hundred Thousand" by Francis Dean.  This is a very technical book on US WWII fighters).

Likewise descriptions of the F6F stall characteristics in AHT were some of the evidence given for changing this in AH.

190A5 weight was corrected because of FW and Rechlin documents provided by the likes of funked, Vermillion and others.

I am not a military historian (Engineer by profession), but I have found documents of this sort by using local University libraries and microfilm records, corresponding with book authors, corresponding with Germans who have friends who work at Mauser, trading Documents with Vermillion and so on.  A good place to start is to look at the bibliographies of books like AHT and track down the documents listed there.

Occasionally some particular feature will be so widely commented upon (apparently the 38 tail fragility was one of these rare cases) that HTC examines it closely and finds an error.  But this is rare.  Most things that are changed through player input (Niki ammo load, a5 and 1C weights, F4U-1D climb and acceleration, F6F stall) are changed because somebody did a lot of work and came up with historical documents which provided proof.  Without this proof it is nothing but an opinion.

Hazed makes a slew of statements as if they were fact when in reality they appear to be half-recalled anectdotes from some second or third hand account.  He states:

german official crash investigators counted hits on downed bombers and said on average 25-30 20mm hits brought down a bomber...

Where does this come from?  I believe its wrong because it doesn't match the figures I've seen from Rechlin documents and from: "The Development of German Aircraft armament to 1945,  USAF Historical Studies: No. 193".

Is the 51 "a tank" in AH?  Is the 190f8 really that weak?  Since we are talking about AH it's easy to test.  We all have everything we need right at home.  Of course hazed hasn't bothered to actually try to test it and is offended that I even suggested it.

If you "feel" something is wrong the rational thing to do is to do some research and find out if your "feelings" have a basis.  The research results might surprise you.  You said an Osty killed your tank with a 7.92mm machinegun.  How much research do you think you would have to do to show that mg17s didn't kill tanks?  There is a world of difference between saying that an mg17 should not kill tanks and Hazed's statements regarding the relative durabilities of the P-51 and 190f8 in AH.

Hooligan

[mrsid2]

When a lightly armoured flakpanzer can kill a medium panzer with his mg before the panzer has time to load enough 75mm ammo on it, you don' t need any data to know that it's wrong.

A light attack vehicle or AA vehicle should die from the first direct 75mm hit and get damaged by a close miss. OTOH MG fire should not do any damage to the panzer whatsoever unless it manages to penetrate the armour through an observation hole for example.

Panzers were designed to withstand much heavyer fire than mg's, that's the whole point of building them. MG fire only richochetes away.

It seems that AH has the infamous % DM, only divided to more sections. That means you can kill anything with a pistol, just need to shoot a bit longer.. With a high rate of fire weapons that can lead to situations that the lighter gun can deliver more 'damage' per minute than the slower but heavyer cannon. I'm pretty sure this is the reason why we see what we see on the game arena.

[Wilbus]

Was more like 20x20mm mm from the Minengeschoss. Bout 3-5 (sometimes less aswell, aswell as sometimes more) 30mm Mk108's.

It comes from the ground crew and people who examined the bombers.

[hazed-]

Hooligan, Before you write off everything i say as irrelevant READ WHAT YOU SEE HERE eh? Im quite willing to listen carefully to what tac says about the P38 durability as he flies it more than i or you(no doubt) do.
You attack what is essentially a REQUEST to HTC to  EXPLAIN THE DAMAGE MODEL a bit. Im not DEMANDING instant change.Im pointing out what feels totally incorrect compared to info i have in many books. Its THEN time for anal retentives like you to do HTCs work and test it out

 I have done my fair share of testing so do me a favour and stop trying to make me look like im talking toejam.READ what im diddlying driving at eh? I have NO TIME to sit and test evrything about guns, I HAVE tested shooting MG151s at all manner of targets and ITS BORING! I dont feel its my place to do the work for HTC even though i have helped out.It was me who noticed the spread of bullets from all guns was following a pattern and after i mentioned it it was looked into AND CHANGED,none of your bloody DATA sheets, NO historical referencel, JUST PURE OBSERVATION.

AND btw the 20-30 20mm hits to kill a b17 isnt made up,how dare you! who the f*k do you think you are? You want the book i read it in then read 'fockewulf fw190 in combat-alfred price','the first and the last-adolf galland'-'the luftwaffe fighter force-veiw from the cockpit-galland et al-david isby'-among others, I cant remember which but i have posted it all before for HTC and im not about to start looking for it for your sake.

You continue to ignore what i have asked about, demanding i prove what i see? well how am i supposed to? I have no idea how the DM works, I have no idea if the bullet is caculated after impact and continues to travel and be calculated through the model? are all bullets equal or do every other bullet calculate as AP or HE? when a P38 takes 20 hits of 20mm and limps home, is it correct?

HOW THE HELL SHOULD WE KNOW? there are no documents ive seen on bullet penetration of various parts an aircraft.Ive seen a thousand pictures of bullet damage sure but how does that help me when i fly in AH?

Its all a matter of WHETHER HTC DECIDED THEMSELVES on the way planes break up or if somehow they have info on it which i doubt. HTC heard the complaints on the p38 glass tail, they heard the complaints of the 1 ping engine, they heard the complaints of the niks and it was adjusted right? ONLY bcause somewhere along the line they AGREED it was wrong.
Did they use data? did they go to hooligan to help them out? I sorely fu**in doubt it

So from this we can extrapolate that the damage model was matched as closely as they could to the scraps of info we have. then they added some sort of mathmatical equation to calculate bullets, no doubt using vermillion as a help here? maybe they used armour penetration data who knows??
BUT SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE they had to guess or add their own idea of what is correct so that what they saw on screen matched as closely as they could to what they read right?

Id be willing to bet every penny i had that it isnt purely made up on data.If that was the case there would be no mistakes as it would just be a matter of adding the numbers.

NIK e retention,190s engine+speed,p38s glass tail,p51d wing rip,armour of all ground vehicles,bullet dispertion etc etc etc etc.

all were things that were essentially unprovable because no one had any data but it just didnt FEEL right did it.maybe like you said some were later proved by archive documents but it all started with players complaining it was wrong.

Im sorry hooligan but you really angered me with your 'show the data' crap..Im well aware of the merits of testing,Im well aware of the masses of data that has been found by other flyers here and how usefull it has been.BUT some things are about what feels right, whether you like it or not.If we gave perfect data on aircraft and added it to an imperfect computer programme it would still be wrong.I could test forever and you would argue the data is perfect but the only hint we would have that something is wrong would be quirky behaviour that doesnt look or 'FEEL' right. see my point??

and the fact that ive flown AH for over 2 years and have flown all models, fired every gun, tried every vehicle and essentially play tested it every day(almost) means nothing right hooligan? what the hell do i know? Ive probably played AH more than some of the HTC staff!!

so lay off eH? bloody anal retentive accountant/engineer

[Sikboy]

Why bother using smilies?

[hazed-]

sikboy youre right , i wasnt smiling at all in reality.......but CAN YOU SHOW DATA TO PROVE IT?

[Sikboy]

LOL

-Sikboy

[Hooligan]

I have done my fair share of testing so do me a favour and stop trying to make me look like im talking toejam.

Actually I am not trying to make you look like you are talking toejam.  I think you are doing that yourself.  However I would be happy for you to disprove this.  Just tell us exactly where you found the following information.

Ive read stories of the p38 having the tendancy to lose its tail when hit by even small caliber fire

german official crash investigators counted hits on downed bombers and said on average 25-30 20mm hits brought down a bomber

Personally I think this is just BS.  However you can prove me wrong by providing the sources.  Then we can examine them and see if they seem to be reliable.  Or you can just continue to rant, tell us all how much testing you have done and what an expert you are etc.. etc..  But anybody can claim to have read or tested a lot; that claim is meaningless.  It's rather juvenile to just say "I know what I'm talking about, so back off."  I don't think you know what you are talking about so prove it.

If you really want some changes in AH then you will go to some effort to provide proof.  Otherwide I guess your position is:  "Well some things about AH "feel" wrong to me, so I am going to yell and pout."  At the very least in the future you can save some bandwidth and instead of typing so much, you can just post a short message about how you feel pouty.

Hooligan

[hazed-]

like i said hooligan, i have previously posted all the info i have mentioned, I admit the p38 small calibre fire was an exageration on my part, but the source for the crash investigators was the FW190-alfred price' book i mentioned earlier.

what i find fascinating is how you seem to think only the data is relevant.In case you havent noticed the data is Real life but its added to a PROGRAMME.Bugs,errors, net effects all play their role.

you now demand i prove my testing too? well Im not about to wade through 2 years of posts just to prove a mute point to you.
I have participated in tests with otherplayers on the MG151, Ive talked to vermillion and others on the subject often enough but i can hardly recall when the hell it happened.....try searching posts from over a year ago eh?

ive had enough of you hooligan, I have read your answers and i must admit some of the material you talked of I was unaware of.
I took in what was written and I agree data is paramount.but let me ask you this.......

when the p38 was looked into by HTC how was the adjustment(and the level of adjustment) decided? Did they go to the programme model of p38 and add some numbers to the armour value? did they adjust the effect of all guns on that particular model? is there a set number for each aircraft model? Obviously they thought something was wrong, so WHAT was wrong? was it a bug? was it an error in input of data? was some other part of the programme affecting it?

you see what i mean? It WAS wrong,it WAS changed.Did the adjustment conformed to some new data found by the likes of you or FUDOA? was the old data incorrect? well in your tradition Id like to see this data.
My guess is it was a bug or they simply agreed it felt weak and needed adjustment.

you jump on my back about my request to look at it again and seem to be implying that the data used is perfect until someone can come up with new material.Well it isnt is it? mistakes happen and usually the first sign of a problem is complaints from players seeing 10X20mm hits causing little or no damage or similar effects.When these complaints are ignored it causes frustrtion and for me personally it starts to affect my enjoyment of the game.

I dont post these things to attack HTC, Im requesting that they help me understand whats happening so my view becomes more objective.I did not request you to do it on their behalf but if you can explain what i have asked then by all means do it, if not then kindly mind your own business and ignore it.

[Raubvogel]

Originally posted by Tac

Just right now lazerr, Kappa, MrWulf and I got bounced in Mindanao W of 32 by a flight of 152's (wilbuz? that u guys?). Lazer and I got hit by a close quarter, high speed snapshot.. and verily enough, both of us got bad damage on the plane. I had lost 1 engine, 1 elevator, pilot wounded and both my rudders. Even then I dived below the clouds and managed to RTB and land. Lazerr crashed on the landing because of the damage. If those 152's had jumped a P-51, Spit or any other plane it wouldve been dead instantly.
 

That was me, Furious, and Glasses. I hit Lazerr with at least 1 30mm and a couple 20mm. It should have made that plane unflyable....instead it seemed to just take out oil on 1 engine.....

I'm glad they fixed the 38 because it was a bit too fragile....but I think they may have gone too far in the other direction. Just my 2 cents, and I haven't done a double-blind placebo test so go away

BTW...Furious lost both wingtips on that sortie...guess how?

He fired the 30mm in straight and level flight and both wingtips came off.....now there's something that needs looked at.

[Hooligan]

Okay so you made up the part about 38 tail vulnerability.  I'll get the book and see what it says about 20mm hits on bombers.  You wouldn't want tell us what page it's on or produce a quote would you?

Hooligan