Thoughts on Damage Model

[Nemisis]

And the reason that I say that MGs would benefit more from this capability is because under the current damage model cannon are more likely to just blow the wing itself off outright, anyway.

Agreed. Cannons will kill you, MG's will damage you, and yet you suffer no adverse affects from someone shreading your wing....

[Saxman]

Incremental damage to lift surfaces and stabilizers doesn't need a goal or a purpose; it only needs to be a credible representation of what might actually happen when an aircraft is damaged.

I get more kills in Il-2 from just shooting chunks out of the aircraft's wings and stabilizers than I do from shooting them off outright.

[BigKev03]

I don't whool agree that hiting a bomb with cannon fire or 50 cals would be enough to set it off.  Remember what sets off the bomb in the first place?  The fuse!  Bombs have to be armed to explode.  Some fuses go off base don altitude others by time.  Just depends.  We use to cook with C4 when I was in the Marines.  A little piece of C4 was a good way to heat your chow.  Will high temp start a fire and then a chian reaction?  Yes it is possible.  But the chances of a round causinga GP bomb to explode are slim.  Now torpedoes are different and it would depend on the content of the power source of the torpedo.  If the torpedo was a hyrogen peroxide mixture then yes it could explode after being hit or exposed to heat.  But a GP bomb the odds of it exploding are low.  Did it happen yeah i will give that it probably did but we would have to research Air Force/Army Air Corps records to find out and how would we know because if the bombs exploded the plane with the flight log didnt return.  Could only rely on log entries from other aircraft.  Just my 2 cents worth but I do like the topic and what it addressed.

BigKev

[Flipperk]

If there is an effectiveness difference, the firepower has changed.  What sort of mealy mouthed sentence did you post?

You guys really think the machine guns should be more effective than they were?

The point at which I see is the line is the fact of this:

One party states that the MG is useless and the Cannon, and that by the all or nothing damage model we have the Cannon is favored and the MGs is left almost useless.

The other states that, well nothing happens to plane either way as long as the wing doesnt fall off. You could fire both MGs or Cannons all day and as long as the wing is still on they are both just as effective as the other.


The point Sax is making is that he IS NOT trying to lessen the power of the cannons NOR trying to up the power of the MGs. He is making the point of that when we land hits we should see noticable change to the flight dynamics of the plane, even if the wing does not fall off. With the current state as long as the wing does not fall off, nothing happens. This is not what happened in real life, chunks of wings would be shot off and the dogfight would be over.

As to the questions that brought HT brought up. What do you want out of this change?

Heres my answer:

I want a more realistic flight comabt sim, and by adding in the effect of every bullet does realistic damage to the flight dynamics of the plane, this can be easily achieved with a more realistic flight experience.

And honestly, unless we fix this damage modeling issue, this game is hard to call a "sim"

[Anaxogoras]

I get more kills in Il-2 from just shooting chunks out of the aircraft's wings and stabilizers than I do from shooting them off outright.

Against AI, very much so.  Against humans the effect is lessened because some are quite good at compensating, but I've still seen plenty roll into the ground after taking fire to a wing.

[Karnak]

Flipperk,

Machine guns are anything but useless in AH.  Certain players like to say they are, but that is BS.  They are quite lethal in AH.

[Nemisis]

I agree, their not useless. But the edge cannons have is over exagerated. Were asking for damage to parts to impact flight characteristics, thats all, not saying MG's might as well be water pistols.....

[Karnak]

I agree, their not useless. But the edge cannons have is over exagerated. Were asking for damage to parts to impact flight characteristics, thats all, not saying MG's might as well be water pistols.....

I disagree and see no reason that the USN's numbers are exaggerated.

[Nemisis]

Lets see, cannons: you loose a wing, MG's: your wing is damaged and nothing happens.... Thats exageration: it gives the appearance that MG's do nothing....

[Anaxogoras]

Keep in mind that cannon shells frequently do not cause critical damage.  So what you are complaining about in regards to machine guns is also a valid complaint about all weapons in the game.

[OOZ662]

We acknowledged that a while ago. However, though it moves the "top end" up a little, it drags the "bottom end" up much higher...if you get what I mean.

[Baumer]

I hope Mr. Shaw doesn't mind me sharing this table from his book, but he presented a very clear definition of gun lethality in chapter 1 with the following results. I hope this helps some of you discuss the relative lethality between machine guns and cannons.



Since that's figured for each gun I think a rough estimate would look something like this;

• 8 x .30 cal= 13.6
• 4 x .50cal= 25.6
• 6 x .50cal= 38.4
• 2 x 20mm & 4 x .30cal= 38.6
• 2 x 20mm & 2 x .50cal= 44.6
• 4 x 20mm= 63.6

[Nemisis]

Keep in mind that cannon shells frequently do not cause critical damage.  So what you are complaining about in regards to machine guns is also a valid complaint about all weapons in the game.

Yes, but its more prevailent with MG's.

We acknowledged that a while ago. However, though it moves the "top end" up a little, it drags the "bottom end" up much higher...if you get what I mean.

No I don't know what you mean...or what your saying...

[OOZ662]

Through the addition of "flight disturbance by damage," you raise the effectiveness of cannons a little and the effectiveness of MGs a lot.

[Nemisis]

Oh, I see. should have worded that better IMO.