USARStarkey

Several things. 1. It is obviously my opinion. In fact, if you read, youll see that I stated that. Way to go captain obvious. 2. Once again, if you read, we did some of he shooting from deflection while the target maneavered. 3. This one makes me laugh. Precisely what experience do you have to say that I'm wrong? As I recall, I mentioned some brief data earlier. We could go into more detail. Others here have agreed with me, so you basically just called all the them idiots as well. And if we want to get into real world experience, I have at least operated a 50caliber machingun. While not wholly relevant to a airplane necessarily, Ive seen what a single gun operating only at 500rpm can do to a motor vehicle as far out as 800 yards: clue, it isnt pretty. I could also cite gun camera footage and burst masses etc. 4. Good for you, nice singualr anecdote. This is why i included averages etc. 5. It is obvious from your vitriol that your post has nothing to do with furthering this topic and that you intent is just to defame me because of our personnnal dispute. Seems to me that the neg rep i gave fits the reason i gave it for.

Preliminary Test Results, I will post both the Tacviews and Tracks later. RESULTS OF HUMAN VS HUMAN P-51 MUSTANG BALLISTIC TESTING Nature of Tests: First test was done by shooting only the wing of target plane and seeing how many hits were needed. It took 54. The rest of the tests were either done by shooting a stationary plane until it died or dog fighting. Most were stationary flying targets. Effects of hits were reported between bursts. Number of Tests:9 Shortest Number of hits to achieve a kill: 47 Largest number of Hits to achieve a kill: 195 Average Hits to achieve kill: 117.4 List: 54,84,142,195, 174, 105, 90, 47, 166. Opinion of tester: Issue is not as great in some ways as fighting the ai. Aircraft are subject to aerodynamic problems, although not as great as it should be. In none of the tests was the aerodynamic penalty enough to either cause the target to crash while maneuvering or need to fight the aircraft to perform a maneuver. In the most severe list, a very light counter on the stick was all that was necessary to counterbalance it. It is likely that it affected turn performance etc, but it did not prevent the target from easily performing maneuvers, seriously affect the targets ability to bring weapons to bear, or generally continue fighting. Most critical difference between ai and humans is the engine failure or complications from damage, which does not seem to affect ai at all. This aside, the amount of damage/complications is not severe enough. Average number of hits to down a non-maneuvering fighter at zero-deflection at a range of 200-500 yards was 117. In some cases as high as 195. If engine failure did occur, it almost always happened just before complete obliteration of the plane, or was that actual cause of obliteration due to fire or failure. Overall, the number of hits needed to down a plane is considered far too high.

The aerodynamic effects caused by damage to the air frame are either infinitesimal or non-existent regarding some effects. The only thing that is "evident" is that the airplane might lose maybe a half a degree per second in turn or stall slightly worse even when the damage to the wing is something to effect of 2-3 3 inch wide holes and many others. Whatever the visual to virtual ratio, this is true even when the wing is just above complete structural failure. Aircraft only noticeably list etc if entire surface sections are gone: ie a third of a wing tip being shot off. I will post more once my testing is done.

Certainly, but I contend that the visual disconnect does not explain the bulk of these issues. That being said, until my testing is done this is a moot point. PS: has anyone had a chance to review my tracks? Not just to ED devs but anyone interested in this issue.

All of the other awesome features of edge aside, Ill just be happy that I can see airplanes without having to wear both my monocles.

Will do, Ill make it available as soon as possible. I need a guinea pig to test with :) Note: I find it really interesting that there is another relatively new thread that is basically about this exact same issue.

Ill go even further. I will do a series of tests with a human pilot and post all track data. Tests will focus on analysis of the effects of damage. I will shoot a plane with very short bursts and then review the effects after each series of hits. This will take some time though so please be patient.

Everything I listed there cannot be explained just by that alone. Additionally, I havent experienced any significant, if any, aerodynamic penalties even when my plane was damaged to the point that the next short burst i received removed my wing.

Sith I admit that the human controlled planes are more susceptible to damage, like engine failure from bullets, but by in large they seem highly resilient. The following is a list of things that dont happen, or often dont happen after large amounts of damage to the critical spot. 1. Aileron or elevator destruction (rarely) 2. Mechanical control linkage failure (saw this for the first time in 1.29, once, and never saw it again. 3. Fire from hitting fuel, that doesnt also result in a wing being removed at the same time. 4. significant control problems from aerodynamic damage. Wings that are riddled with bullets produce little if any effect on performance. From what I can tell, listing only seems to happen if I take my hand completely off the stick. It is otherwise undetectable, and I'm not even sure exists unless a whole wing section is removed. IE: no matter the damage, I've never had to fight the plane to keep it level. General: Human controlled planes seem to suffer very little from aerodynamic damage. I get into fights all the time where either myself, or my opponent get into a low speed luftberry and I or he gets around on the other despite one of us be highly shot up in the wings.

My conversion was meant more for fighters than bombers, and was meant to be simple. It does not matter what you hit, which is the problem, especially with ai. Mechanical linkages never fail, engines get riddled and keep running like new, fuel is hit with APIT and doesnt ignite, control surfaces sustain no damage except in extremes cases. Even with human planes, the occasional engine failure aside, plane can be turned into a leaky sieve and fly pretty much just like they were before you poked holes in them. I find myself all the time with a wing that looks like swiss cheese and has holes I could drive a truck through, but the effect of said damage is either so small or non existance to the point that I cant tell if a tiny tiny list is the result of torque, damage, or my trim being off..... As for the flashes they simply cannot be correct when the simply dont exist. Right now all you get is the occasional smoke poof. There are zero flashes. Furthermore, the smoke effect doesn't happen regularly. I discovered that in order to down planes I needed to just hose them down, but I had a hard time figuring this out because I thought I was missing! This was because many of my registered hits were not having any visual returns. There is no flashing from the APIT rounds.

this is a mod i made by tweaking the 50cal stats in the lua file. Keep in mind this is 6 nose concentrated M3 50s firing at 1100rpm each, or 4400rpm combined. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RD7O2aFM7Y&feature=youtube_gdata

tracks here. I will upload the tacviews later. dmgmdl2.trk dmgmdl3.trk dmgmdl4.trk

I will post the tracks. I saved 4 of them. It is hard to see visually, so make sure to look at the summary at the end for the number of hits. Also, that is another think i forgot to mention. the tracers dont flash on impact like they should, which makes it very hard to know your hitting.

50 cal Ballistics/Aircraft Damage Model Ridiculous That's what I'm getting at. Any fix would work until the model becomes more advanced. This definitely affects the human planes though. You need far too much time on target. This critically affects people doing b n z.

So I did a series of 20 Dogfights of 51 v 51 and 190D vs 51. I know issues with the Damage model have been discussed before. I am also aware the some of the issues were fixed in the last patch: like the tail re-growing. However, after looking at the track data, it is clear that is not the just 190s dmg model that is at fault here. On average, it took around 100 HITS to down either the 51 or a 190. That is incredibly silly. In several cases, 190s or 51s sustained between 90 and 80 strikes in a SINGLE burst without dying and had to finished off later by as much as 30 strikes. It will be easier to tell once we can fly the Dora, but the 20mm may have the same issue based on how many hits Ive taken without being brought down. In reality, while not as good as cannons for pure power, 50cal armed planes had very effective armament. The USAAF considered 1 20mm round equivalent to 2-3 50 cals. The Germans considered 20 20mm shots effective to down a B-17. Making some rough estimates off of this, about 60-70 rounds would be required to down something that is far larger and more durable than a 190 or 51. Even a cursory analysis of the gun camera footage or pilots descriptions shows 50 cal armed planes downing planes in far less than 100 rounds. This needs fixed please. 100 rounds to kill a fighter is insane. It seems routine even in human v human matches that planes riddled with bullets suffer little serous damage. Control surfaces remain function, planes rarely catch fire, ailerons and elevators seem to be nearly immune to destruction. Ive seen 51s piloted by humans covered in massive holes all over the fuselage and wings and still flying like nothing is wrong. The fuel leak seems to be the only reliably inflicted damage.

1. This is not an official Il2 product. 2. This is Il2, a game whose FM's are known to be suspect. 3. Which Mig vs Which Sabre? 4. No-one said the mig shouldn't be challenging, just not a space ship. 5. If you are referring to Il2s mig ai, il2 has a known issue where ai are not affected by drag in the same manner as the human players. Amongst many other silly ai features, such as the 20G spiral dive defense.

Personally I dont see anything wrong with the way it is now.

Right that is what I am trying to say. That gap wasn't that big, especially with the water injection this thing is supposed to have. Not certain if it is, but it doesnt seem to be.

Yeah the damage modeling is another thing. The blasted thing needs about 50 gazillion hits to kill. The Dora is also this way, but not as bad as it used to be-or so i hear.

Any way the next event could be 16 on 16?

Except, the bars appearance in your images and the ones posted by the 3d modeler and others appear to be basically the same.

The current migs e-retention and climb or combination-whichever......is currently quite silly. The thing practically floats up and away from you. Sure, the mig has a better climb rate, about 1000fpm, but I have found that I need excessive amounts of speed, sometime more than 100-200 knots just to come out equal in a zoom climb. Take for example the 190 vs 51 fight. The 190 has about the same climb advantage about about 1000fpm. Sure, if you get slow enough, and the 190 has enough space so that your not in guns range, it can get away-albeit slowly. The mig just points he nose up and I find myself stalling out while he still has 200knots more airspeed and is still going up----even when we were relatively co-e at the start.

I can see the bar in the second image and in the video. The 3d model in game looks fine.

So, doing some very cursory reading Ive noticed some places claim the F-86F achieved max thrust with water injection. Ive noticed the throttle goes past 100% Is there a way to use the 5min water injection system?

NEED EDGE OH DEAREST EDGE! WHEREFORE ART THOU EDGE? Please come quickly edge, because I cant see a bloody thing in the current graphics engine. In all seriousness, I cannot wait till the new engine comes out.