12.7 mm gun damage

[crudboy12]

It seems to me that the issue with the damage model for the 12.7 mm guns in DCS comes down to a problem with weapon penetration mechanics. To my eye, it seems like the rounds are not damaging components under the skin of the aircraft and are instead only doing damage where they first hit, as you might expect HEI rounds to.

Here you can see that the aircraft is hit multiple times around the side of the cockpit and the engine, but the pilot is still alive and the engine is unharmed.

Here you can see that when I finally did kill this guy, it was by shooting his tail completely off, and the pilot bailed out unharmed. Real 12.7 mm rounds would likely kill the pilot long before the tail fell off like this, especially since I was shooting from his 6 o'clock at the same altitude. I hope this gets fixed, because I love the p-51 and enjoy fighting in it, but it is at times frustrating to surprise an enemy aircraft and not get the kill in one pass because the guy's tail fin ate all the shots. Sabre has the same issue, but at least it has guns in the nose and an accurate radar gun sight.

[Pzkfw]

It could be the 109 does not have a pilot hit box coded...? :D

[arglmauf]

That's due to the damage visuals and the damage model being two different things. Damage representation is loosely based on a locality swapping a texture for another texture that shows some potholes, irrespective of whether there was actually a bullet going through there or not. As I understand the current damage modelling, it looks at what compartment the bullet hit and then decides at random what component is getting damaged/destroyed. That's the supposed reason why the prop gov. likes to break so easily. It simply goes "Nose area was hit, roll dice.... Prop gov got destroyed" This system was okay-ish for jets slinging missiles at each other and occasionally going into gunfights but it's pretty lackluster for WW2 planes shooting each other up, hence why ED is currently revamping the system to allow for more accurate damage calculations. On your observation: You probably never hit close to the pilot. It's just that the damage decal paints a broad spread across the fuselage.

Edited May 11, 2017 by arglmauf

[gavagai]

That's due to the damage visuals and the damage model being two different things.

 

This. I've killed plenty of pilots in DCS, both human and AI, but the damage you see on the aircraft is mere decoration.

 

ED is working on a new damage model as we speak. There is not much point in picking apart the old one.

[crudboy12]

 

ED is working on a new damage model as we speak. There is not much point in picking apart the old one.

I am glad to hear this. I hope it is patched in soon. I love the props in the game and I want to see them represented more accurately.

[tflash]

Is there not also a problem of to little explosive effect of the .50 cal rounds in game? I usually hit gound targets, it takes me often 12-15 direct hits before I can set a truck on fire. If you take into account you can disable a truck with one shot out of a M109 Barret rifle, I find the 6*.50 cal of the DCS P-51D absolutely underpowered.

[escaner]

The .50 cal ammo in the P-51 is API (armor piercing and incendiary), and some of them are also tracers. No explosive rounds per se.

But their damage is supposed to be increased with the new damage model.

[Solty]

The .50 cal ammo in the P-51 is API (armor piercing and incendiary), and some of them are also tracers. No explosive rounds per se.

But their damage is supposed to be increased with the new damage model.

Explosive filler doesn't allways translate to higher damage. With API you can kill an inline engine pretty quickly while HE round might even blow on the airframe making just a hole with no substantial damage. It will explode on the armor plate behind the pilot doing nothing while API can go through and kill the pilot. It all depends on many different factors.

 

BTW our mustang has M2 AP and M20 APIT only in the game, which I have made a thread about. We can just hope ED will bring us the period appropriate M8 API to replace M2.

[M1Combat]

Unless it hits the engine or an armor plate I'd think .50 AP should go clear through the plane no matter where it hits. If it hits the engine fairly directly I'd still expect it to generally get inside the engine causing oil/coolant leaks or even getting into a cylinder or in the crank case. That said... my experience with .50 is limited to a Barrett M99 rifle with a 32" barrel and at ~3200FPS. What's the muzzle velocity of the Mustang guns?

[Datek]

I hope the sound is improved as well. Having fired thousands of rounds with the US Army M2 .50 machine gun, the DCS version feels and sounds more like shooting spit balls than .50 bullets.

[Ghost_SWE]

I hope they revisit the convergence. The P51 has the worst pattern of all the WW2 birds in game.

[Davee]

Is there not also a problem of to little explosive effect of the .50 cal rounds in game? I usually hit gound targets, it takes me often 12-15 direct hits before I can set a truck on fire. If you take into account you can disable a truck with one shot out of a M109 Barret rifle, I find the 6*.50 cal of the DCS P-51D absolutely underpowered.

 

The Barret rifle does not necessarily set a truck on fire. It usually stops it by destroying the engine block. Round type is different from the P-51.

 

The P-51 wartime .50 cal round was not an explosive round. It was an API (armor piercing incendiary) round. Fire will only happen if fuel or flammable objects are involved either on board or being carried by the target. Explosive rounds are usually 20mm and up to accommodate the thermal material. Anything smaller is not well suited for that.

 

My thoughts are it is more than likely the damage model that is at fault and being worked on for aircraft - not sure about ground vehicles though. Also, not all rounds fired will hit a fuel source.

[Perfesser]

My thoughts are it is more than likely the damage model that is at fault

Each round at 3000 fps and 750 grains should pass through everything on an airplane from back to front except the engine(maybe that too), each round causing damage in multiple areas.

Couple that with it's ability to retain energy well past 400 yards this should be the most effective weapon on any of the WW2 aircraft.

[Solty]

Each round at 3000 fps and 750 grains should pass through everything on an airplane from back to front except the engine(maybe that too), each round causing damage in multiple areas.

Couple that with it's ability to retain energy well past 400 yards this should be the most effective weapon on any of the WW2 aircraft.

In fighter to fighter combat. But it would be enough to easily destroy German and most Japanese bombers. But I would not be confident in their performance against a beast like the B17 or B29 :3

[Davee]

Each round at 3000 fps and 750 grains should pass through everything on an airplane from back to front except the engine(maybe that too), each round causing damage in multiple areas.

Couple that with it's ability to retain energy well past 400 yards this should be the most effective weapon on any of the WW2 aircraft.

 

Not close to being the most effective weapon. Destructive force of the 20mm Hispano canon much superior for one.

 

Specs are all on google.

[Perfesser]

Yes and no.

You only have 2 cannon on the Spit (although the Hispano is about the best there is) compared to 6 BMG in the Mustang so although in a side by side the cannon is about twice as effective as a .50, each cannon is not better than 3 x .50 cal.

And while cannon are more effective on bombers that aren't that hard to hit you're throwing out about 1200 rpm (600x2) in the Spit while the Mustang is firing 4500 rpm (750 x 6) greatly increasing the hit probability on a maneuvering target when you only have time for a quick squirt at a time.

[horseback]

Yes and no.

You only have 2 cannon on the Spit (although the Hispano is about the best there is) compared to 6 BMG in the Mustang so although in a side by side the cannon is about twice as effective as a .50, each cannon is not better than 3 x .50 cal.

And while cannon are more effective on bombers that aren't that hard to hit you're throwing out about 1200 rpm (600x2) in the Spit while the Mustang is firing 4500 rpm (750 x 6) greatly increasing the hit probability on a maneuvering target when you only have time for a quick squirt at a time.

I've read many, many comparisons from American, British and Polish pilots who went from the Spitfire to either the P-47 or the Mustang, and they uniformly stated that 4, 6 or eight .50s were superior to the 2X20mm +4X.303 armament of the Spitfire with a 'c' wing armament: besides the destructive power of the rounds, they always were very happy about the extra firing time. Like most simulators, DCS tends to discount the effect of multiple large-ish projectiles punching holes in the (quite thin) aluminum skin, which tended to tear off in chunks at speeds over 250kph if penetrated and/or torn wider by the air pressure generated at those speeds. You could describe the effect as being much like a slow motion explosion. On most fighters, that skin was critical to the aircraft's structural support and general aerodynamic performance; big pieces torn off or flapping in the slipstream would be very bad for the pilot's morale, among other things.

 

cheers

 

horseback