Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Noir on July 08, 2012, 05:02:35 AM
-
Why is an A20 much more resistant than a bf110?
Why is a Ki84 much more resistant than a spitfire?
How do you think HTC decides the hit points of each plane?
Discuss :bolt:
-
design/materials of each plane are differant
-
design/materials of each plane are differant
OK but the resistance of each design and material under gunfire is a bit subjective isn't it?
-
I would imagine it's based on historical consistencies as well as the plane's design.
B29s and A6Ms catch fire easily, just like most of the historical data and based on design flaws.
A20 is tougher than the 110 because it was designed to hold more stress, it had to haul 8x 500lb bombs around. And I'm sure it had armor added as well, where as the 110 was supposed to be a long range escort at first, so less armor for less weight/more range.
There are some quirks in AH though, 190D's glass radiator, P47N losing their main fuel hit all the time, etc etc.
-
A note on the Bf110, look at its rear fuselage. That isn't any larger than, say, a P-51D's. Look at the A-20G's rear fuselage, much larger and thus a 20mm blowing a chunk out is a proportionately smaller chunk of the structure meaning also less loss of strength.
-
OK but the resistance of each design and material under gunfire is a bit subjective isn't it?
The perception of differences in damage is a bit subjective unless you've collated data you'd like to share.
-
From testing done long ago:
Hispano Mk II hits required to remove the tail:
B-17G: 17
Lancaster Mk III: 14
Mosquito Mk VI: 3
Bf110G-2: 2
-
Thanks Karnak. The complaints seem to come more from the less rigorously controlled main arena damage results.
As I recall improved damage modeling is high on Hitech's to do list.
-
Thanks Karnak. The complaints seem to come more from the less rigorously controlled main arena damage results.
As I recall improved damage modeling is high on Hitech's to do list.
Start with the flaps....it's stupid how it's gone yet the game think it's "stuck".
-
Start with the flaps....it's stupid how it's gone yet the game think it's "stuck".
Maybe you have that backwards, it's stuck but it looks like it's gone. I expect in the future we may see both conditions as damage options.
-
Maybe you have that backwards, it's stuck but it looks like it's gone. I expect in the future we may see both conditions as damage options.
Same difference? :noid
-
Same difference? :noid
Equally confusing. :lol
-
From testing done long ago:
Hispano Mk II hits required to remove the tail:
B-17G: 17
Lancaster Mk III: 14
Mosquito Mk VI: 3
Bf110G-2: 2
damn, it takes 8.5 time more ammo to remove the tail on a B17 than on a 110? :huh That ratio is confusing
-
It only take one through the cockpit. :banana:
Cockpit and wingtips. Cockpit and wingtips....cockpit...and...w ingtips. :old:
-
From testing done long ago:
Hispano Mk II hits required to remove the tail:
B-17G: 17
Lancaster Mk III: 14
Mosquito Mk VI: 3
Bf110G-2: 2
This had to be before they took the Nerfbat to the Hispano...I'd like to see this repeated now.
the 110 seems to have been built with wings that are perforated at the fuselage for easy removal in AH
-
I must have missed the nerf on the hispano :headscratch:
-
This had to be before they took the Nerfbat to the Hispano...I'd like to see this repeated now.
I expect it would be the same seeing as the "nerfbat" has never been taken to the Hispano.
-
Why is a Ki84 much more resistant than a spitfire?
I get an awful lot more oil hits and especially pilot wounds in the Ki-84, more than in any other plane. There is a reason for the wings being less fragile, they are one piece including the whole central section of the fuselage (wig tips aside).
Having said that I'm not convinced the Spitfire wings should be so fragile to battle damage.
-
I get an awful lot more oil hits and especially pilot wounds in the Ki-84, more than in any other plane. There is a reason for the wings being less fragile, they are one piece including the whole central section of the fuselage (wig tips aside).
I didn't know that, thanks!
Also under certain high G conditions, the spifire wings can separate from the fuselage.
-
I have a picture somewhere...
-
Here you go:-
(http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k526/rwrk2/HayateCentralSection.jpg)
Picture credited to Januszewski.
Two spars, one main and one auxiliary. Main spar also formed frame (bulkhead) number 2 and auxiliary spar: frame number 5.
-
nice, mus have been a logistic nightmare to assemble the plane
-
Easier, I should have thought. Start at the centre and work outwards :rofl
Now the Spitfire wing's internal construction was a work of art!
-
nice, mus have been a logistic nightmare to assemble the plane
The Ki-84 was apparently a vast improvement over the Ki-43 in ease of assembly.
-
Spitfires arn't exactly weak - they have much fatter wings which soak more bullets then say a Fw-190, in a turn fight a spitfire exposes those fat wings.
Ki-84 has a pretty rugged airframe, I would put it on par with a P-47 in gamewise, I've seen little as 20-25 50 cal rounds take down both aircrafts and i've seen multiple snapshots in order to bring them down.
Prime example: Shot down a P-47M with less then 25 rounds in a 109k4 (no 30mm) I was lucky he tried to run and i just managed to get a quick burst off.
TWCAngel was in a Ki-84 last night, I dove down and put literally 20x 20mm rounds into him, I took my snapshot and flew off all the rounds hit the rudder area and I expected him to lose a tail or be shot down - I climbed away after the burst and was amazed he was still flying on with only an aileron and rudder missing.
Damage modeling can be tricky, I've been lucky to take a few 20mms in the wings of a spitfire and not lose a wing, I have lost all guns on one side though.
-
lol butcher that's the story of my encounters with ki84...the thing won't blow up!
-
The Ki-84 was apparently a vast improvement over the Ki-43 in ease of assembly.
Yes a lot fewer parts than the Ki-43 believe it or not. 84 is basically an overgrown 43 with more motor and more logical construction. More cup holders too & electric windows.
-
The two flat out toughest planes in the game/planes that eat the most ammo IMO are the A-20 and Lancs! I can just sit on them and put a 3 second burst into them and watch them fly away with a elevator and flap missing!
-
I find the Yaks to be damage sponges, need about 3 times more hits it seems :eek:
-
Lancs: Old 3D model it won't catch fire
A20's imo should be just a tad bit more resistant than a 110, but it's like 5 times more resistant
Yaks are an old 3D model, and a small target....
Anyone has info on why this planes are so resistant?
-
I can shoot the wing off of a 110 with a short burst from a c202 or from the rear gun of a lancaster or from the D3A front guns.
-
I can shoot the wing off of a 110 with a short burst from a c202 or from the rear gun of a lancaster or from the D3A front guns.
yeah its funny, supposed to be a larger 2 engine plane, yet has the hit points of single engined fighters.
-
I'd like to think of it as a fighter with second chances. You get an engine shot, you're not completely screwed. You get a rudder shot, not completely screwed. You get a pilot wound, at least you can hop in the rear gun and still keep visibility around you.
-
I'd like to think of it as a fighter with second chances. You get an engine shot, you're not completely screwed. You get a rudder shot, not completely screwed. You get a pilot wound, at least you can hop in the rear gun and still keep visibility around you.
sure, but I was under the impression that alrger planes get more hit points (A20G), and the 110 seems to not benefit from that
-
sure, but I was under the impression that alrger planes get more hit points (A20G), and the 110 seems to not benefit from that
Neither does the Mossie or P38.
-
Neither does the Mossie or P38.
true...I never saw a P38 loose a whole wing with the engine included tho, the inner part of the wing seems non-detachable, until the plane blows up, from the cheer number of hits.
-
It's rare, partly because I think the inner part of the wing is attached to the booms, so you'd have to have very very precise fire in the area between the booms and the cockpit to remove the entire left/right side of the plane. It's happened maybe once or twice to me, mostly from larger caliber guns (30mm+) where all that's left is the cockpit area and it looks like I'm flying in a pea pod. :airplane:
-
You guys can test all of this offline with the drones at full zoom doing single taps on the trigger. Film it and watch the play back in slow motion from the con's external perspective. Used to test the MK103 versus NS-37 that way against a B25H for single shot distruction testing.
At least then you will have a bit better standardised data.
-
thank you captain obvious, it's a great because I didn't know what to do with my next two years!
-
If you guys are in here then as usual none of you want to go offline and test any of this and be done with it.
-
From testing done long ago:
Hispano Mk II hits required to remove the tail:
B-17G: 17
Lancaster Mk III: 14
Mosquito Mk VI: 3
Bf110G-2: 2
What is it now.......1 shot Hizookas, or mostly what I'm seeing. :eek:
-
I'm urging to say double standard and bomber bias...but I must not.
-
I do a lot of testing offline. Testing guns on airplanes offline is very hard though as it is hard to be precisely accurate while doing a constant slow turn to the left. I really wish I could set the drones to fly at a fixed altitude from one base to another and then back, giving long stretches of straight and level flight to shoot them in.
The tests for tail removal I referenced earlier were done in the DA with another player flying the target straight and level and using the single cannon of a P-38L one round fired at a time. Three tests per plane. It takes quite a bit of time, hence only those four were done.
-
damn karnak that takes a lot of patience already :O
what about testing with a basic vulch?
-
Why is an A20 much more resistant than a bf110?
Why is a Ki84 much more resistant than a spitfire?
How do you think HTC decides the hit points of each plane?
Discuss :bolt:
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qkRswbYMXyg/Tf62nPx2KdI/AAAAAAAAAAQ/SFwcu7QuLr8/s1600/Magic%2B8%2BBall%2BMovie.jpg)
-
The tests for tail removal I referenced earlier were done in the DA with another player flying the target straight and level and using the single cannon of a P-38L one round fired at a time. Three tests per plane. It takes quite a bit of time, hence only those four were done.
This test is much easier doing on the ground with a friend in the training arena , and a 50cal like the jeep.
HiTech
-
This test is much easier doing on the ground with a friend in the training arena , and a 50cal like the jeep.
HiTech
Except there's no damage in the TA,well it's reduced to a point that 1000 rounds equals 1. Maybe you meant the DA?
:salute
-
a user spawned arena would do the trick
-
This test is much easier doing on the ground with a friend in the training arena , and a 50cal like the jeep.
HiTech
You trying to see if two players will actualy put up a custom arena, shoot all the planes on the ground with a jeep for 50cal and SDK for 30cal. Then count hit sprites in flim playback to each damage region of each aircraft. Make a table for 30cal\50cal damage for each plane, then extrapolate up using the gun power chart from the trainers web page for 20mm, 30mm and 37mm?
I think I see why it was Wish Listed for the hanger drop down menus.
Shooting a drone of an in game plane you are having questions about damaging and killing for 20 minutes to see how it falls apart related to the ride you fly is more meaningfull as an object lesson to translate directly back to the MA. Not seeing hit sprites or sprites everywhere but forward of the wing trailing edge as a reward for your shooting efforts is more often a timing issue and intial sight picture miscalculation. Learning how to get a larger percentage of your rounds on a moving target is a bit more relavant than having glanced at a damage table before you go on a sortie. Access to a damage table cannot make up for gunnery problems systemic to the pilot's flying and gunnery abilities.
I don't se alot of IL2 pilots attacking the top of engine compartments from a steep angle to take advatage of the 6mm-40mm of steel covering those compartments. I'm never sure if anyone remembers\knows the armor thickness 3 views are available in the hanger with each vehical. Granted any chance of penetration of the thicker plate with the NS-37 has to start from 400 yards and closer becasue the plate thickness is enhanced by shooting at angles less than 90 degrees into it. Thats also turned alot of tank Commanders into single shot wonder killers of planes attacking them because of how close you need to be with guns.
Right click menu charts with nifty pictures and lots of data make good bells and whistles to help new players feel like they are getting value for their investment in the game. Gives older players an offcial data source for their ongong whizzing matches over perceived technical errata in the game. Kinda like the DnD days when everyone was sure they knew all the damage hit tables for Bugbears or FootSnorchers that could be rolled with their 12 or 24 sided dice. In this case a mouse right click.
-
damn karnak that takes a lot of patience already :O
what about testing with a basic vulch?
Because a basic vulch is far, far too imprecise to give any useful data.
This test is much easier doing on the ground with a friend in the training arena , and a 50cal like the jeep.
HiTech
True. There was no jeep at time we were doing that test though. I don't know why we weren't using a Panzer IV H's pintle gun though.
-
You trying to see if two players will actualy put up a custom arena, shoot all the planes on the ground with a jeep for 50cal and SDK for 30cal. Then count hit sprites in flim playback to each damage region of each aircraft. Make a table for 30cal\50cal damage for each plane, then extrapolate up using the gun power chart from the trainers web page for 20mm, 30mm and 37mm?
I think I see why it was Wish Listed for the hanger drop down menus.
Shooting a drone of an in game plane you are having questions about damaging and killing for 20 minutes to see how it falls apart related to the ride you fly is more meaningfull as an object lesson to translate directly back to the MA. Not seeing hit sprites or sprites everywhere but forward of the wing trailing edge as a reward for your shooting efforts is more often a timing issue and intial sight picture miscalculation. Learning how to get a larger percentage of your rounds on a moving target is a bit more relavant than having glanced at a damage table before you go on a sortie. Access to a damage table cannot make up for gunnery problems systemic to the pilot's flying and gunnery abilities.
I don't se alot of IL2 pilots attacking the top of engine compartments from a steep angle to take advatage of the 6mm-40mm of steel covering those compartments. I'm never sure if anyone remembers\knows the armor thickness 3 views are available in the hanger with each vehical. Granted any chance of penetration of the thicker plate with the NS-37 has to start from 400 yards and closer becasue the plate thickness is enhanced by shooting at angles less than 90 degrees into it. Thats also turned alot of tank Commanders into single shot wonder killers of planes attacking them because of how close you need to be with guns.
Right click menu charts with nifty pictures and lots of data make good bells and whistles to help new players feel like they are getting value for their investment in the game. Gives older players an offcial data source for their ongong whizzing matches over perceived technical errata in the game. Kinda like the DnD days when everyone was sure they knew all the damage hit tables for Bugbears or FootSnorchers that could be rolled with their 12 or 24 sided dice. In this case a mouse right click.
Were Footsnorchers in Monster Manual 1 or 2? I dont recall them , but it has been quite a long time.
-
Were Footsnorchers in Monster Manual 1 or 2? I dont recall them , but it has been quite a long time.
It was in a dungeon run by a nice DnD Domitrix I knew way back when in the late 70's. Bugbears and Dragons bored her. So she wrote her own fantasy dungeon where it got explicityly adult the closer you got to the Treasure. You were punished early on for failing a challenge and magicly morphed into a lowly "Footsnorcher" being walked on for a few turns of the dice. Turned out rescuing damsels in distress was shooting your gift horse in the mouth if you goofed and went to her rescue like normal dungeons of the day. That was her first simple trap in the dungeon.
Yeah I goofed in the first room and rescued the damsel "not in distress". Should have known something was not right when the Oger with the whip told me this is not what you think it is while the damsel kept telling me to go away. Thats why I remembered what a "Footsnorcher" was. Damsels are never what they seem to be at first glance. And some games are better left to strange experts.
-
Except there's no damage in the TA,well it's reduced to a point that 1000 rounds equals 1. Maybe you meant the DA?
:salute
Custom arena and the KOTH map.
-
BUMP, it seems like the 410 is a paper plane
Specifications (Me 410 A-1)
General characteristics
Crew: 2 (pilot and gunner)
Length: 12.56 m (41.2 ft)
Wingspan: 16.34 m (53.6 ft 7 in)
Height: 3.7 m (12,14 ft)
Wing area: 36.20 m² (390 ft²)
Empty weight: 6,627 kg (14,597 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 11,244 kg (24,766 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × Daimler-Benz DB 603A liquid-cooled V12 engine, 1,750 PS (1,726 hp, 1,287 kW) each
Specifications (DB-7B, Boston Mk III)
General characteristics
Crew: 2-3
Length: 47 ft 11 in (14.63 m)
Wingspan: 61 ft 4 in (18.69 m)
Height: 17 ft 7 in (5.36 m)
Wing area: 465 ft² (43.2 m²)
Empty weight: 15,051 lb (6,827 kg)
Loaded weight: 27,200 lb (12,338 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 20,320 lb (9,215 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × Wright R-2600-A5B "Twin Cyclone" radial engines, 1,700 hp (1,268 kW) each
I don't see anything justifying the abysmal difference in toughness between the two, can someone enlighten me?
-
BUMP, it seems like the 410 is a paper plane
Not mine. I've been flying the Me 410 quite a lot, and especially since the last tweaks I found my 410 being able to withstand quite some abuse.
-
Not mine. I've been flying the Me 410 quite a lot, and especially since the last tweaks I found my 410 being able to withstand quite some abuse.
can it survive a 30mm hit in the wing like the A20?
-
Not mine. I've been flying the Me 410 quite a lot, and especially since the last tweaks I found my 410 being able to withstand quite some abuse.
I killed a 410 with my A-20...It absorbed quite a bit of .50 caliber hits to finally go down. I shot off the outer right wing, an elevator, a flap and had both engines smoking. Still it flew on. My next burst finally blew it up.
Also, the other evening I was shooting up a formation of B-17s in an A-20. One or two pings took the left wing off of the A-20 at the fuselage as I climbed up through the tracer stream 1.2k behind. There appears to be a certain randomness to damage.
-
110's still go down with bad breath or 7.7mm's directing towards it.
Them Yak's are close to indestructible. No other single engine fighter suck up that much of damage, from what I've seen.
-
Also, the other evening I was shooting up a formation of B-17s in an A-20. One or two pings took the left wing off of the A-20 at the fuselage as I climbed up through the tracer stream 1.2k behind. There appears to be a certain randomness to damage.
the number of 50cal hits you hear are not indicative of anything,
-
110's still go down with bad breath or 7.7mm's directing towards it.
Them Yak's are close to indestructible. No other single engine fighter suck up that much of damage, from what I've seen.
even if it's a bit exaggerated, there is some truth in this. There is no logic behind these hardiness values that I see, and I'd like to see them changed
-
Also in my AH career I've never seen a hint and even less evidence there is a random component in the damage model