[OPEN] "Mk 108 is weak" thread

[NineLine]

Those times are both extremes, not the norm. If you peruse gun camera footage, watch the effects of these guns on various targets in tests, or simply read the encounter reports of pilots that amount of time spent hosing down targets was brief. In most gun camera footage a fire or other noticeable damage occurs quite rapidly in most cases. Just look at the damage caused in the 30mm test on that spitfire. That damage greatly exceeded what would be needed in most cases as it ruined several control surfaces and would mostly likely have caused wing loss if the plane had been in flight and not resting on the ground. Sensational stories of how airplanes came back with extensive damage were sensational because they were not normal. I dont expect a zero to routinely take 74 hits, especially since the most common perception is that they were easily destroyed. Nor do I expect a P-47 to take hundreds of 30cal and over 20 20mm hits. Because that was the exception, not the rule. The most casual look at gun camera footage will show that it did not take many strikes to bring down a plane. What you are saying also goes directly against what the Luftwaffe stated their weapons could do. 5 20mm = typically sufficient.

 

The Spitfire test is also an extreme, a static object firing on a static object, and I am sure you could spend night and day showing both sides of the argument. I stand by my assessment so far that I stated above, I was only trying to show that we are not Ace pilots, even though we all think we are, we shouldn't be disappointed if we dont shoot down 6 to 10 fighters every flight. Yes, things can be improved, but its making the right improvements and not knee-jerk ones...

[USARStarkey]

The Spitfire test is also an extreme, a static object firing on a static object, and I am sure you could spend night and day showing both sides of the argument. I stand by my assessment so far that I stated above, I was only trying to show that we are not Ace pilots, even though we all think we are, we shouldn't be disappointed if we dont shoot down 6 to 10 fighters every flight. Yes, things can be improved, but its making the right improvements and not knee-jerk ones...

 

This is like the 3rd or 4th Thread someone has started about the damage model. Knee Jerk that does not make.

 

Why make insinuations about people egos and pilot skill? I dont recall anyone expecting ace in a sortie status?

 

If wartime testing, gun cameras of actual combat, pilot accounts, and the opinions of the the actual air-forces involved are not sufficient to convince you then what is?

[tintifaxl]

Having the roots in modern BVR combat, DCS is still in it's infancy regarding the WW2 era. With 1944 they need to improve on a lot of things (e.g. friendly AI behaviour, radio sounds, visibility of contacts, windsacks for aerodromes, los for AI), not just the dm that's mostly catered to A2A missiles and SAMs.

[NineLine]

This is like the 3rd or 4th Thread someone has started about the damage model. Knee Jerk that does not make.

 

Why make insinuations about people egos and pilot skill? I dont recall anyone expecting ace in a sortie status?

 

If wartime testing, gun cameras of actual combat, pilot accounts, and the opinions of the the actual air-forces involved are not sufficient to convince you then what is?

 

I always seem to have trouble getting this point across it seems, but knee jerk is increasing the strength of a cannon when it turns out to be an error in the damage model. Having real world examples doesn't make the code magically appear, if that was the case we would have had the perfect Sim long ago... We need to find out the issue, the cause and how to affect change.

 

And another point, what are you trying to convince me of?? Did I say there wasnt a problem?? No, I said I wanted to find the real issues and causes... I am sorry if the process isn't fast enough for you, but that's how it works...

 

So please don't make this a us against you thing and actual read what I have found already and what I continue to think are out standing issues... Please...

[USARStarkey]

I always seem to have trouble getting this point across it seems, but knee jerk is increasing the strength of a cannon when it turns out to be an error in the damage model. Having real world examples doesn't make the code magically appear, if that was the case we would have had the perfect Sim long ago... We need to find out the issue, the cause and how to affect change.

 

And another point, what are you trying to convince me of?? Did I say there wasnt a problem?? No, I said I wanted to find the real issues and causes... I am sorry if the process isn't fast enough for you, but that's how it works...

 

So please don't make this a us against you thing and actual read what I have found already and what I continue to think are out standing issues... Please...

 

Ok, but as I stated earlier I dont think this is a projectile issue. Its a DM one. Do I think ED should just materialize a ultra sophisticated DM tomorrow? No, and I said that in this thread. However, the existing damage model could use some tuning. For example, why is it that I can kill a F-15 or Su-27 faster than I can kill a Bf109 or Fw190 or P-51? Because the DM on the modern jets is very different from all of the ww2 planes, or Korean war planes. They act largely like flying hunks of aviation-grade granite. Given that I have already modded the DM myself with absolutely no game development or programming education, I can imagine that ED can at the very least make a the current damage model less tough.....

[NineLine]

:doh:

[Solty]

What? I have no clue where you got that from... The damage model we have right now is probably more advance then anything out there (for the PFM player controlled aircraft), the visuals and effects are not a good representation of that... no idea how you think I am insulting the game by saying what I did, I think you need to re-read what I posted...

I haven't said you are insulting me, I said that "It is nearly insulting that a game that claims to be a top notch simulator doesn't have a proper damage model." figure of speach.

 

When I tell people about the game I tell them that DM is not too good, so they won't be disapointed. When they get it, and every single of my friends did that, they say "you said that DM is bad... but not this bad!"

 

Maybe most of it realy is graphical fidelity, but it surely feels unresponsive and kills the immersion.:joystick:

It needs to feel more violent and weapons need to have power and look like real shots. Tracers are quite bad, hit "flashes" are bad. Everything looks slow.:cry:

 

Watch this and tell me how much disapointing that is in DCS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLxI6kW7bFU

 

In DCS every fight ends the same. I have not seen a single plane loose control surfaces to gun fire (that happens only when you hit the ground).

EDIT:

I have a fight recorded in OLD IL2, where I hit the guy's wing at low speed, which makes him go into a spin, due to sheer power of kinetic energy that is trasfered by the impacts of .50cal HMGs.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Solty

[ZaltysZ]

But realistically, would the Germans waste 30mm on fighters, or save for bombers, wasnt this the purpose of adding the function of firing separetly?

 

Pre 1944 doctrine told escorts to stay close to bombers. Germans could attack with altitude advantage, cherry pick the targets, conserve the ammo and simply safely disengage because escorts would not follow them. Things changed in 1944: escorts were given more positional freedom and even were allowed to chase attacking fighters.

 

Think about how the situation changed for Germans in 1944. They could intercept bombers and attack with altitude advantage, however bombers likely had escorts above them. That leaved Germans choosing between making a single pass on bombers and then having to shake the escorts off (read: hard to make repeated attacks on bombers), or preoccupying escorts from the start and almost forgetting the bombers. No ability to overwhelm in numbers meant that whatever role Luftwaffe pilot got, he likely ended mangled with escorts while still having lots of 30mm.

 

So, yes - once engaged with fighters, Germans did not conserve 30mm for bombers, they just hit whatever they could with everything they had trying to seize opportunities while minimizing the time they were tied to single target, because that target usually had a friend rushing to save him.

Edited January 9, 2015 by ZaltysZ

[Echo38]

If you peruse gun camera footage, watch the effects of these guns on various targets in tests, or simply read the encounter reports of pilots that amount of time spent hosing down targets was brief.

 

Yes; I've already stated that I consider "two 30mm shells on average" to be a reasonable figure, and that's a very short burst. Sometimes you'll get lucky with one, and sometimes you'll get unlucky and need three or more. Not every detonation on the wing is going to hit a spar or fuel tank. You need to look not only at impact location, but also angle.

 

Just look at the damage caused in the 30mm test on that spitfire. That damage greatly exceeded what would be needed in most cases as it ruined several control surfaces and would mostly likely have caused wing loss if the plane had been in flight and not resting on the ground.

 

As I indicated earlier, these were perfect conditions attempting to determine the maximum damage these rounds could do to various parts of the airplane. The angle and location of impact were carefully chosen and, from a stationary shooter to a stationary target, there was little difficulty in hitting the exact place. (By the way, the Spitfire weighed quite a bit less than a P-51, and wasn't nearly as sturdy & rugged.)

 

In the air, however, there are many factors (even if the pilot's skill is not one of them) which can cause the damage to be reduced. Slipstream & wingtip vortexes don't merely make aiming difficult; they can also subtly affect the trajectory of the rounds themselves (I don't expect it to be much, but it's there). The target aircraft may not be straight & level and presenting you with a zero-deflection shot. As a result of these and others, the shell can "graze" and, although this may still result in a detonation of the shell, much of the explosive energy can thus be directed elsewhere rather than into the target. It can also punch through a thin part of the airplane (e.g. the trailing end of a wing) and expend most of its explosive energy after exiting, doing little more than making a three-centimeter hole.

 

Furthermore, even on direct hits, it has been well-established that sizable chunks can be taken out of the wings of a solidly-built fighter (e.g. any of the main U.S. fighters) without impeding their ability to fly under normal conditions. They're no longer combat-worthy, but they aren't shot down, either. Aside from examples of cannon and flak hits, fighters sometimes collided with trees and telephone poles and came out on top, sometimes bringing ~foot-thick pieces of wood home, lodged in the wing. Fighter aircraft generally aren't delicate flowers whose wings readily depart them at one hard smack, even from a cannon, and I've found it very unusual to see a wing coming off of an aircraft in gun camera footage. I've seen it a few times (mostly Japanese lightweights), but very few.

 

But in this case you have not presented evidence to support your position.

 

This is true. It's been many years since I've had the heart to browse gun camera films (the older I get, the more the reality of my simulated hobby bothers me), and I have no reason to devote hours of my time (these "little" posts have eaten enough!) working to try to prove this point to anyone. I trust Yo-Yo to do his own homework, because, so far, whenever he has devoted his attention to an issue, his level of care has been exemplary. (I believe that the reason for the current Mk. 108 damage problem is that he has been spread too thin, so to speak, to give it his full attention.) My objective here was to provide a pointer in the right direction for any who are open to doing research themselves, because the evidence is out there. I dislike seeing the myth that the Mk. 108 was a regular one-hit-kill weapon (especially regarding wings, which were more resistant to damage than flight sim/games generally give them credit for) spread around without any contrary suggestion offered, hence my little pointers.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Echo38

[NineLine]

I think this thread has run its course, consider the issue under investigation. Closed