Interesting GunCamera Shots

[Wilbus]

Ammo, Duckwng, very true both of you, most fotage I have is where the pilot abandons the plane aswell, hell, I would too if I had someone shooting at me with alot of big guns, 50 cals are big and they do alot of dammage without doubt, I just don't find it very interesting to have about 2 ways a plane can actually go down (ok, a few more), would be nicer with something like IL2, wings can blow off, fire at em enough and saw em off, but planes can allso be disabled if shot you enough, that's shomething AH doesn't have except for complete loss off surfaces.

Yes Duck, I'd hate to see what 50's would do you light civilian plane, wouldn't survive much of it. Armor helped the WW2 plane to stay alive, but vs 50's and 20's it didn't matter much unless you had alot armor.

I just want more ways for planes to go down

[Kweassa]

I actually think J_A_B has a good idea.  

 Now if I have this correct, there are only three types of smoke in AH. One is the white 'fuel leak', the other is the pale gray 'oil leak', and the other is the dark gray 'radiator destroyed'. In case of a fire, which is a pretty rare phenomenon in AH(rare in the way that it is not so often the main reason for plane destruction. Most fires in AH are only 'accomplices' that follows with the structural damage), uses all three smoke at once(I don't know if the dark smoke is the result of a pale gray+dark grey, or a seperate black fume in place).

  In support for Wil's plea for more ways to go down(and a bit of less percentage of structural failure ), I say we put in more degree of different damage on engine/radiator/oil mechanisms. A bit of heavier degree of engine damage that spews out a real black fume, the engine is not completely shut off as in current 'engine dead', but the performance of the engine is drastically dropped down unlike current 'radiator damage' or 'oil leak'.

 If implementing a visually/systematically sophisticated damage model is too far-fetched an idea in current status, then I think there can be an alternative of maintaining current damage model, but more diversifying the categories of damage and the degree of damage.

[AmRaaM]

Who cares?




just gimme the damn SABRE !


AH ver. 2.0  - Sabre jet

[Zer00]

Ok...  Heres a little check for ya.   Yes, Maybe it was a seemingly rare scenario for entire wings to be blown off, etc. However, How many Pilots Flew 10 to 20 (or many more) Sorties in the period of just a few hours? How many had over 100 kills??
Why am I asking the seemingly obvious questions? B/c, This is exactly what you have in AH.
In just a few hours, each virtual pilot may fly anywhere from 10 to 30 (heh, if, like me, they really suck) sorties. I've seen Many peoples scorecards read way over the 100 kills mark (unlike mine, which is pitifully Low, LoL).
Point Being, You have more combat taking place over  a very short period of time.
That being said, Even something that only had a 1 in 30 chance of happening in the real war is gonna happen much more often in AH. Especially if you think about the ammount of people flying N1ks and such with cannons.     Aside from that...  AH's Dm may not be exactly realistic...  But then again..  Its a computer simulation. Computer games ( including sims, fps's, etc) are still a work in progress, so let the AH dev's continue to perfect this beautiful piece of software.

Zer00

[Wilbus]

Well, 50 cals take off wings just as easy as cannons in AH...

[J_A_B]

I think the AH damage model does its job.  IMO it takes about the right amount of ammo to kill something; just in AH you're shooting off a wing or control surface instead of killing the engine and watching the pilot bail out.  In terms of the tactics you need to use and the effectiveness of ACM, the damage model is about right.

Having planes lose their engine and plummet in a plume of thick black smoke instead of losing a wing or control surface might technically be more realistic (again if you can figure out a way to encourage the losing pilot to bail out), but if it's taking the same amount of ammo either way then it doesn't make much of a difference.

I offer another possible reason for the commoness of structural failure in AH:

I play AH in 800 x 600 and I cannot see it if I damage an enemy's elevators or some other vital control surface.  I tend to shoot at a plane until something BIG breaks apart.  Often I am shooting up a plane that is already "dead", but since I can't tell I prefer to "make sure".

Again, a more realistic damage model where engine failure and fire is most common is possible to program, but it needs to be done along with somehow rendering the "losing" plane unable to fight or run, otherwise the game degenerates into "glider war".  The benefit of the current AH damage model is the losing plane cannot try to "take the other guy with him", and nor can it usually dive away to friendlies (hard to control a plane with no wing).  

J_A_B

[-ammo-]

Originally posted by Wilbus
Well, 50 cals take off wings just as easy as cannons in AH...

If you are inferring that 50 cals have more detructive power than cannons in AH..well, that is BS.

Now if I hit a wing at convergence with my 8 50's sustained, I expect it to come off.

[Wilbus]

No they don't ammo, they have less as they should, however a wing wouldn't come off from 20x50 cal hits, if they hit the VERY vital parts of the wing, yes, not if they just hit the wing it self, try it in AH, put 20 of them in the wingtip and it's gone.
Too powerfull, I often use 10+ 20mm's on planes before they go down.

[Vruth]

Wilbus - let me ask you a simple question through a typical scenario...

a. You are in a P-51 chasing another P-51 at 400Mph.   It is at your 12'O 400 yards. It pulls up hard.  You lead and hit it's left wing with 6 50cal rounds.

b. You are in a P-51 chasing another P-51 at 200Mph.   It is at your 12'O 400 yards. You hit it's left wing mid point with 6 50cal rounds.

Tell me, considering the WING LOADING, which hit might rip off the wing?  

HTC models wing loading and it does play a role in damage modelling.

[Wilbus]

I'd say number A, doesn't have much to do with what I mean though, you easily lose wings withuout pulling hard, 50 cals kill as easy and quite often much better then Mg151's.

[Vermillion]

*Sigh* I take the time to scan in some really cool guncam footage and nobody wants to talk about that, just piss and moan about something else.

[streakeagle]

The gun cam footage shown, while quite interesting, would be more "Officer's Club" material since it shows how effective Korean War MiG's were at damaging Korean War Sabres rather than supporting any argument for or against AH modeling. But you posted in the general discussion and challenged the public assessment of the HTC damage model, which of course lead to digressive threads that have nothing to do with the Korean War gun camera footage

I could learn way more from the photos if there were plenty of other ones to compare to, which would establish both the full range of possible outcomes and the average outcome rather than a couple of isolated incidents that may be far from typical and represent aircraft and weapons of a later era

Okay, now I have discussed something pertinent to your cool photos you scanned in. Are you happy now?

[Skorpyon]

gotta agree with streakeagle Verm, the footage was cool, but not really pertinent considering the difference in weapons deployed.....

And to join in the "other" discussion... I must be flying in a different arena or something, as I often suffer loss of "parts" without total wing failure, and performance IS diminished.  Does AH model every little shredded, bent piece of metal or dangling wire?... NO...... would we want it to, considering the fps hit most of us would suffer when this was modeled in mmol play?  Absolutely not.  
     I have a theory...... this is what happens when some folks get a bit impatient waiting for new versions... the nitpicking starts because there are no new features to keep em occupied.  Now let's discuss an IMPORTANT feature that AH is lacking.  I read once that C47's had rifle ports that passengers/troops could use to fire at attacking planes.  Now THAT would be an improvement.. imagine, that poor, defenseless goonie looming large in your gunsight, your finger just about to squeeze the trigger, and some grunt's .30 cal round pierces your forehead just above the brow line, splattering your cranial contents all over the inside of your canopy.... now THAT's what I'd like to see!

[Wilbus]

This is what made me wanna discuss DM

Particularly because some people commonly claim that damage models are really bad because "large parts, like wings, just don't fly off".

Cool shots yes, but with that comment it's impossible to avoid a discussion surounding AH DM.

[StSanta]

FWIW Verm: I really appreciate the photos. I rarely get to see such things, so really appreciate it.

And I agree with your initial comment: this toejame does happen.