What is Eagle Dynamics doing wrong?

[Random]

 

Of course i hate the long development times and especially the orientation to WW2 junkers

 

 

 

 

What? wheres the announcement? Which Junkers? although the Stuka is cool I prefer the 88 or even JU52! although I suspect transport missions arent really most peoples cup of tea.

[Kuky]

What? wheres the announcement? Which Junkers? although the Stuka is cool I prefer the 88 or even JU52! although I suspect transport missions arent really most peoples cup of tea.

 

I think he meant junkies :)

[Isegrim]

And i think Random did know that..

[Scrim]

DCS: P-51D has a level of realism that that other thing never came remotely close to having ... it never even tried. No sim or game featuring WWII fighters has ever been made to the level of fidelity seen in DCS: P-51D, or even half of that level, and you damn well know it. How could I be immersed in a flying game when the physics are all wrong and the aircraft don't remotely match their real-life specifications? No, thank you! I'd rather have a sim, thank you!

 

I agree that the P-51 is marvellous, but to be quite frank, I don't think anyone can deny that the damage model is extremely unrealistic. Do a MP dogfight and see how incredibly much damage it can absorb. The damage you need to take before you can't fly it normally alone would've been sufficient to down 1-2 P-51s IRL.

[Echo38]

I didn't have much of a problem taking down a human-flown P-51 in a few short bursts, last time I was able to fly. The primary problems people have with this are their own inexperience at gunnery and/or their shoddy control setups -- even the expensive simming controllers are garbage compared to real aircraft controls. That said, yes, the damage model (especially its visual representation) is not one of the greater strengths of the sim. However, I should point out that -- compared to other sims/games -- it's at least sufficient. I don't recall seeing another sim/game doing it better by leaps & bounds, the way that DCS does flight physics & general aircraft fidelity better by leaps & bounds. Doesn't mean there's no room for improvement, of course, but I don't know that it would be wise to devote the amount of resources toward damage model physics that it would take to make a significant improvement. In a perfect world ...

Edited July 12, 2014 by Echo38

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

 

IL-2 1946 is way over the DCS in aspect of II WW.

It is weird.

 

An astute observation; a 13 year old game has more content than a much newer one! And, also, UFO-tier fighters because Secret Documents™!

[Scrim]

I didn't have much of a problem taking down a human-flown P-51 in a few short bursts, last time I was able to fly. The primary problems people have with this are their own inexperience at gunnery and/or their shoddy control setups -- even the expensive simming controllers are garbage compared to real aircraft controls. That said, yes, the damage model (especially its visual representation) is not one of the greater strengths of the sim. However, I should point out that -- compared to other sims/games -- it's at least sufficient. I don't recall seeing another sim/game doing it better by leaps & bounds, the way that DCS does flight physics & general aircraft fidelity better by leaps & bounds. Doesn't mean there's no room for improvement, of course, but I don't know that it would be wise to devote the amount of resources toward damage model physics that it would take to make a significant improvement. In a perfect world ...

 

I'm not a good virtual prop fighter pilot, so it's not about what I've experienced from the shooting end, but at the "being shot at" end. Last time I flew it (has been no mention of changes to the damage system in the update we've had since) I took at least 6 bursts that should've blown me clear out of the sky by themselves, but yet I could keep flying with zero issues, apart from some broken gauges and jammed weapons in one wing. Not even when the tip of one wing had been replaced by a burning inferno did I have many issues RTB'ing, where I crashed not because of my damage, but because of the shoddy landing skills I had at the time.

 

The one time I did land hits on someone, the person in question was recording, and from that as well as what I saw when it happened, it was without a doubt a long killer burst from close range, hitting rudder and stabilizer flaps (the horizontal ones on the tail, not sure of the name), and yet his plane didn't even from the loss of any of those, or even less response from them.

[NineLine]

The displayed damage has been noted by the devs as an area that needs improving, so its known, I think many times because how the visual damage is displayed you can look like you shouldnt have been able to fly, and vise versa... although when parts start falling off, I believe the flight dynamics should change... now there has been a few reports of aircraft RTBing with crazy amounts of damage in the real world... but if you ever see something that is obviously a bug... post the track in the forums for us.

 

Personally I have had times where I have taken a ton of shots with little effect, other times I have taken a small burst and spun to my death... that isnt that far fetched though...

[Scrim]

It's not about visual damage at all; When I've heard several long .50 cal bursts hit the WW2 Mustang I'm flying, I shouldn't be able to fly it at all, not even after the first burst, let alone after the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eight and ninth at least. Every single one of those bursts were the kind that when you see them as gun camera footage, always result in a burning target falling to pieces after half the burst.

 

The inability to see where other planes were due to a lack of smart scaling was something that made the MP dogfights boring, but seriously incredible amounts of heavy calibre bullets that planes could absorb with little to no damage was the ultimate deal breaker. Even when I've flown SP missions in the -51 with ZSU-23s have I been perfectly capable of remaining in flight and even executing perfectly normal landings. ZSU-23s don't fire shells with proximity fuzes, so I survived direct 23mm hits. Just one would've blown a modern fighter right out of the sky. A WW2 one surviving several of those just illustrates how badly made the damage modelling of the P-51 is at current.

[NineLine]

It's not about visual damage at all; When I've heard several long .50 cal bursts hit the WW2 Mustang I'm flying, I shouldn't be able to fly it at all, not even after the first burst, let alone after the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eight and ninth at least. Every single one of those bursts were the kind that when you see them as gun camera footage, always result in a burning target falling to pieces after half the burst.

 

The inability to see where other planes were due to a lack of smart scaling was something that made the MP dogfights boring, but seriously incredible amounts of heavy calibre bullets that planes could absorb with little to no damage was the ultimate deal breaker. Even when I've flown SP missions in the -51 with ZSU-23s have I been perfectly capable of remaining in flight and even executing perfectly normal landings. ZSU-23s don't fire shells with proximity fuzes, so I survived direct 23mm hits. Just one would've blown a modern fighter right out of the sky. A WW2 one surviving several of those just illustrates how badly made the damage modelling of the P-51 is at current.

 

So you are saying that no matter where the P-51D is hit, if its more than a few rounds it should fall to the earth?

 

Again if you are seeing it where your mustang sustains damage you think it should not survive, upload a track.

 

And maybe you should find another hobby if you are getting hit so much ;)

[Scrim]

If it takes a direct hit from a 23mm shell, then yes, it really should go down. The A-10 that was hit by the same sort of a 23mm shell over Baghdad just barely made it back. Somehow I don't think a P-51 can take the same amount of damage and keep flying.

[Sabre-TLA]

You should try this mission. You'll get lots of examples of damage effects. :pilotfly:

[Darkwolf]

Yup damage model is wrong : i fall whatever caliber is fired at me. 12.7mm, 27mm, 9mm.... even when i m not fired at, i fall from the sky. Er......wait...could it be my lack of skill ? :P