no bug 30mm even worse?

[Gunfreak]

SO I've seen a lot of complaints about the 30mm and how it doesn't literally blow up a fighter on a single hit, or blow of the tail of a B17 on a single hit. 
While that is true, I've felt that it still did a lot of damage, 1 hit usually enough to take down a fighter, mabye 2 on a bad day.

However today I hit P51s repeatedly, with little effect, I hit 1 4 or 5 times and while I did damage the engine to the extent it stopped working after a while, you would think 4 or 5 30mm in the front of a P51 would have more effect than that. It does feel like it does even less damage than it used to. 
I'm using MT, that might have something to do with it, as TM seems to add bugs all over the place. 


 

1092.trk

[NineLine]

3 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

SO I've seen a lot of complaints about the 30mm and how it doesn't literally blow up a fighter on a single hit, or blow of the tail of a B17 on a single hit. 
While that is true, I've felt that it still did a lot of damage, 1 hit usually enough to take down a fighter, mabye 2 on a bad day.

However today I hit P51s repeatedly, with little effect, I hit 1 4 or 5 times and while I did damage the engine to the extent it stopped working after a while, you would think 4 or 5 30mm in the front of a P51 would have more effect than that. It does feel like it does even less damage than it used to. 
I'm using MT, that might have something to do with it, as TM seems to add bugs all over the place. 


 

1092.trk 10.8 MB · 0 downloads

Just watching your track, while there were no Hollywood explosions, you absolutely destroyed that P-51 on the head-on pass, you destroyed the engine, the cooling system, the fuel system was damaged, and issues with the gear and brakes. The pilot was concussed, and the spars on the left wing were badly damaged. 

The second P-51 literally exploded in flames and the pilot rolled over to bail out but died before he could.

The first P-51 managed to glide back to an airfield and did a belly landing off the side of the runway. AI are AI, they are told to try to make it back to base unless they are too damaged then they will bail out. 

So I am not sure I see an issue really. 

[Gunfreak]

40 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Just watching your track, while there were no Hollywood explosions, you absolutely destroyed that P-51 on the head-on pass, you destroyed the engine, the cooling system, the fuel system was damaged, and issues with the gear and brakes. The pilot was concussed, and the spars on the left wing were badly damaged. 

The second P-51 literally exploded in flames and the pilot rolled over to bail out but died before he could.

The first P-51 managed to glide back to an airfield and did a belly landing off the side of the runway. AI are AI, they are told to try to make it back to base unless they are too damaged then they will bail out. 

So I am not sure I see an issue really. 

The issue is there shouldn't be a plane to gllide with.  I'm sure 4 20mm from the Spitfire in the same place would do more damage. And no it didn't manage to land,  I hunted it down after I delt with the second one and and emptied a few hundred 13mm into it so it caught fire and crashed. 

Not really sure how useful these tracks are for bug hunting if it doesn't know the difference between a plane belly landing and one getting lit up and crashing in a fiery inferno. I assumed ED had a program that "read" the track and actually got the correct info. But if ED gets just as bad info from the tracks as the rest of us. Then it's even more important that the track "bug" gets fixed.

Edited March 28, 2023 by Gunfreak

[NineLine]

2 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

The issue is there shouldn't be a plane to gllide with.

You want an absolute result from something that isn't absolute. You did heavy damage to internals and systems, the plane would be uncomfortable to glide from that long distance (I ask from time to time if the AI should even bother) that said the plane is capable of gliding still. I think with the introduction of the GFM we will see skin damage impact its gliding ability more, at least that is my hope. All that said, the plane left there on the screen is able to glide still, especially from that altitude. 

I took control of the track after you lit up the second aircraft and followed the first for a belly landing. I am sure taking control could have altered that first aircraft's final moments, regardless they impact of your rounds were the same, the damage was done and you killed two aircraft even if it wasn't both in glorious fire and explosions. 

Now try to repeat that same result. Fly the same way and try a frontal attack, and you will probably see different results, as I said above its not absolute it is not 30mm + aircraft = explosion, there are many factors involved which are the beauty and intricacies of our DM. 

[NineLine]

I want to add that I am not a fan of the long distance glidings and I am now, again, asking to change this. Especially for an aircraft being shot at with no engine, etc. 

[MickV]

Tried out the Bf 109 in a goofing around mission, and by my count from the debrief I hit an AI P-51 twelve times with the Mk 108, along with a whole bunch of 13mm. It took 5 hits of 30mm before the AI would abort mission, but it was still maneuvering I had to chase it down and pump another 7 into it to get the engine to quit, but no structural damage other than lots of holes. Many if not most looked to be fuselage hits from what I could see. It glided about halfway across the channel before making a successful water landing and no kill awarded.

Compared to the 20mm MG151's the Mk 108 feels almost useless. I don't know if it's a damage model bug or something is coded incorrectly with the Mk 108 but it really sucks the fun out of the K-4. 

Mk108 no damage.trk

[Dragon1-1]

On 3/28/2023 at 9:42 PM, NineLine said:

I want to add that I am not a fan of the long distance glidings and I am now, again, asking to change this. Especially for an aircraft being shot at with no engine, etc. 

I think that the WWII AI is, in general, too inclined to stay with the plane. IRL, if you had to bail, you had to do it with enough altitude so that your chute would open. If there was a chance that the ship will catch fire, lose its control surfaces or become uncontrollable on the way down, you jumped. Same if you weren't sure if there was any place you could ditch. If you misjudged it, you died. DCS AI behavior is coded for zero-zero ejection seats, they'll stay with the plane until the bitter end. In WWII you'd only glide if you were reasonably sure you could make it back to friendly territory. Other than being too low to bail out, there's no reason to ditch behind the lines and hand the enemy a mostly intact plane. 

[Gunfreak]

30 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

I think that the WWII AI is, in general, too inclined to stay with the plane. IRL, if you had to bail, you had to do it with enough altitude so that your chute would open. If there was a chance that the ship will catch fire, lose its control surfaces or become uncontrollable on the way down, you jumped. Same if you weren't sure if there was any place you could ditch. If you misjudged it, you died. DCS AI behavior is coded for zero-zero ejection seats, they'll stay with the plane until the bitter end. In WWII you'd only glide if you were reasonably sure you could make it back to friendly territory. Other than being too low to bail out, there's no reason to ditch behind the lines and hand the enemy a mostly intact plane. 

I blasted 2 109s with Hispanos. Both were at like 20 000 feet. They both stayed with there totally mangled planes while they slowly desensed. While dozens of spitfires flew around them) in the end both pilot stayed with their aircraft until they hit the ground and blew up. 

 

That's on top of the iffy damage modeling (like not being able to shoot of wings or even blow up aircraft (something that is both described in sources abd caught on gun cam.) It seems impossible to cause catastrophic damage and rip the plane apart or blow it up.

Even .50 cals could cause German planes to explode.

[Dragon1-1]

49 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

I blasted 2 109s with Hispanos. Both were at like 20 000 feet. They both stayed with there totally mangled planes while they slowly desensed. While dozens of spitfires flew around them) in the end both pilot stayed with their aircraft until they hit the ground and blew up. 

That seems like a pilot kill. You can't bail out if you're dead, unconscious or injured so badly you can't get out of the plane. 

As for the .50 cals, it wasn't the bullets that did it, it was 20 or 30mm rounds. Specifically, the ones for the Bf109's cannon, stored in a box in the left wing root.  Hitting that specific spot with an incendiary round, or nailing a primer with an AP will obviously result in quite a fireworks display. Hitting the wing gun ammo in the FW190 will have similar results. For the US aircraft, the belts were laid out differently and the Germans were shooting at fuselages anyway (with fewer, slower, but larger guns I might add), so I would not expect similar fireballs.

That said, this could probably use improvement in DCS. I don't think I've ever seen an ammo explosion tear a plane apart in DCS. Rockets and bombs don't like being hit by gunfire, either.

[Gunfreak]

10 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

That seems like a pilot kill. You can't bail out if you're dead, unconscious or injured so badly you can't get out of the plane. 

As for the .50 cals, it wasn't the bullets that did it, it was 20 or 30mm rounds. Specifically, the ones for the Bf109's cannon, stored in a box in the left wing root.  Hitting that specific spot with an incendiary round, or nailing a primer with an AP will obviously result in quite a fireworks display. Hitting the wing gun ammo in the FW190 will have similar results. For the US aircraft, the belts were laid out differently and the Germans were shooting at fuselages anyway (with fewer, slower, but larger guns I might add), so I would not expect similar fireballs.

That said, this could probably use improvement in DCS. I don't think I've ever seen an ammo explosion tear a plane apart in DCS. Rockets and bombs don't like being hit by gunfire, either.

Not plot kills they flew for well over 10 minutes. Circling trying to land. One even dropped his wheels as he got close to the ground. Then decided to pull them back up again. Before cashing into trees.

 

[NineLine]

3 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

 

Even .50 cals could cause German planes to explode.

Fuel and Ammo explosions still need work, but shooting wings off without these was rare if not 0. 

A combination of wing damage and aero forces can also remove wings, I have shown this before, maybe even to you directly.

The AI is more basic than players, hence the huge investment we are making in the GFM. So while I agree with a couple points, sine points are based on old aspects of WWII games that do not model things like spar strength, and bullet travel through a wing.

2 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

That seems like a pilot kill. You can't bail out if you're dead, unconscious or injured so badly you can't get out of the plane. 

As for the .50 cals, it wasn't the bullets that did it, it was 20 or 30mm rounds. Specifically, the ones for the Bf109's cannon, stored in a box in the left wing root.  Hitting that specific spot with an incendiary round, or nailing a primer with an AP will obviously result in quite a fireworks display. Hitting the wing gun ammo in the FW190 will have similar results. For the US aircraft, the belts were laid out differently and the Germans were shooting at fuselages anyway (with fewer, slower, but larger guns I might add), so I would not expect similar fireballs.

That said, this could probably use improvement in DCS. I don't think I've ever seen an ammo explosion tear a plane apart in DCS. Rockets and bombs don't like being hit by gunfire, either.

Indeed Ammo explosions are not modeled currently, but requested for some time now.

And it's correct that the leading cause on some German aircraft were ammo explosions. Lots of famous images of allied aircraft making it back with part of a wing missing were collisions with harder objects.

 

[Gunfreak]

3 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Fuel and Ammo explosions still need work, but shooting wings off without these was rare if not 0. 

 

Read what comes after the red square.

Freighting and mutilate is not what 20mm Hispanos does in DCS. It should shread planes. As it is now. You can empty 200 rounds of 20mm into a German wing and nothing will happen, even though the wing should have fallen off 190 rounds ago, whether you hit ammo, fuel or not. I understand you can't models the damage down to every single beam or wire. But but obviously at some point there wouldn't be anything left to hold the wing/tail or plane together. I know you can damage the structural integrity enough that the wing can snap off under enough force.

But

1. It seems the damage needed to do this is way too high. You'll put dozens of rounds of various caliber into a wing and they won't snap off. I've probably shot down 500 ww2 aircraft in dcs. I think I've seen wings snap of 2 or 3 times. 

2. It there should be a point when the wing just snaps of from not having anything holding it together anymore, external forces or not.

I understand this probably will never happen (if nothing else the German online pilots would be annoyed that their planes suddenly became very allergic to 20mm. )

I also understand that if ammo/fuel detonation ever gets implemented, the lack of true structural damage will seem less obvious.

[Slippa]

After two years of it sitting in the hangar I’ve just started flying the 109. Very nice it is too, well done.

I haven’t worked out whether or not there are any rockets for it though I’ve seen the selector for them. I’ll work it out.

Last night I was flying it for a while then swapped to flying the P51. Armed with rockets and attacking an airfield I spotted an ‘enemy’ P47 knocking about. I opened up on it from very close range, hit it plenty but ran out of ammo. I had to go around and was thinking of ramming it, I got in pretty close and thought bugger it and fired off four rockets at him. At least one hit him at almost point blank range. It stopped my prop. The jug kept flying, damaged and no doubt with a pilot worthy of being crowned ‘tinnitus world champion’ he was still tooling around as I glided into a nearby farmers field for a wheels up smoky barbecue. 

Fair enough, the jug’s probably one of the toughest of our props but I plugged him with that rocket good and proper and it should’ve been curtains. I’m not complaining, I had a load of fun doing it. All a work in progress n all that.

[Art-J]

K-4 can't carry gunpods and rockets. Selector in the cockpit is a result of incorrect cockpit layout being modelled for this module decade+ ago.

Also, as explained elsewhere, warbirds damage model wasn't designed with rockets in mind (maybe with exception of more relevant R4 and Wgr 21?) and won't quite react to them as expected, or won't react at all. 

[Slippa]

6 hours ago, Art-J said:

K-4 can't carry gunpods and rockets. Selector in the cockpit is a result of incorrect cockpit layout being modelled for this module decade+ ago.

Blimey, more than a decade? Ok, cheers.

6 hours ago, Art-J said:

Also, as explained elsewhere, warbirds damage model wasn't designed with rockets in mind (maybe with exception of more relevant R4 and Wgr 21?) and won't quite react to them as expected, or won't react at all. 

Right oh. WIP then maybe.

Edit: A decade? That’s bloody criminal really. The 109’s a legendary fighter, deserves better.

Edited February 7, 2024 by Slippa
Whinge

[NineLine]

On 2/4/2024 at 2:38 PM, Gunfreak said:

Read what comes after the red square.

Freighting and mutilate is not what 20mm Hispanos does in DCS. It should shread planes. As it is now. You can empty 200 rounds of 20mm into a German wing and nothing will happen, even though the wing should have fallen off 190 rounds ago, whether you hit ammo, fuel or not. I understand you can't models the damage down to every single beam or wire. But but obviously at some point there wouldn't be anything left to hold the wing/tail or plane together. I know you can damage the structural integrity enough that the wing can snap off under enough force.

But

1. It seems the damage needed to do this is way too high. You'll put dozens of rounds of various caliber into a wing and they won't snap off. I've probably shot down 500 ww2 aircraft in dcs. I think I've seen wings snap of 2 or 3 times. 

2. It there should be a point when the wing just snaps of from not having anything holding it together anymore, external forces or not.

I understand this probably will never happen (if nothing else the German online pilots would be annoyed that their planes suddenly became very allergic to 20mm. )

I also understand that if ammo/fuel detonation ever gets implemented, the lack of true structural damage will seem less obvious.

So you are moving the goalposts now? What and where was this text from? What was the target and fast hard-turning fighter or a bomber being intercepted? I mean context matters... anyways... 

The damage like most games and sims is texture based meaning that the textures switching that shows as more damage is done. This does not mean that the wing is not weakened, torn up or pretty much useless. The Mossie has a mix of dynamic damage and the old texture system but sadly it has not advanced much beyond that due to work load. 

Also in your paragraph, it says nothing about wings falling off. 

1) Show me tracks, I can most likely show you how damaged the wing really is even if you cannot see it.

2) There is, but it's not what you think it is. And I have shown this in videos before, you can get the wing to break but it's not as simple as people have determined from older games. The spars on wings are quite strong, even in images of real WWII damage you can si in many cases when the skin and internals are heavily damaged, the spars themselves are not, or not as much. 

Again I am pushing for better damage "feelings" from heavily damaged surfaces. As well as ammo and fuel explosions which will take off a wing in the right situation. 

The AI is also a problem in that they, right now, are not using the same FM as us. I hope this improves with the long-awaited GFM. 

9 hours ago, Slippa said:

Blimey, more than a decade? Ok, cheers.

Right oh. WIP then maybe.

Edit: A decade? That’s bloody criminal really. The 109’s a legendary fighter, deserves better.

 

Gunpods were one of the first tickets I put in for ED when I started testing, I hope one day to see them added. That said it doesn't sound like with the realistic FMs we have in DCS that they will be all that fun to fly with. I believe (although I read about it long ago and maybe misremembering) that many pilots chose not to carry them as they hurt performance quite badly. 

[Qcumber]

The 30 mm does huge damage against the A20. I'm not sure how realistic this is but I keep blowing the tails off after just 2-3 hits. Similarly, one or two 30 mm shells shreds mosquito engines and tears off huge chunks of flight surfaces making them fly very erratically; they don't stay aloft much longer. The B-17 does take a lot more hits, as expected, but targeting the engines destroys them very quickly. This is what the 30 mm was designed for. 

It's a lot harder to hit smaller planes with the 30 mm so I can't really comment on the damage. For these I just use the 12.7 mm guns which do pretty well, particularly if you aim for the engine or cockpit. 

I would like to see a G variant so we can have a 20 mm canon and gun pods etc. 

[303_Kermit]

15 hours ago, Qcumber said:

 one or two 30 mm shells shreds mosquito engines and tears off huge chunks of flight surfaces making them fly very erratically

Mosquito becomes holes just from aiming at her. No matter what bullets you use. 3x0,5'' can set her ablaze. 

Edited February 8, 2024 by 303_Kermit

[Skewgear]

I don't think the issue is the gun, it's the damage models of whatever you're firing the gun at. The Spitfire gets properly clobbered by the 30mm every time unless you're unlucky and only clip a wing. Even then, a hit on the left radiator area invariably vents all the oil through the oil cooler for a mission kill. The Mosquito catches fire as soon as you look at it.

I've blown the odd P-51 tail off but mostly that seems able to absorb several hits. The P-47 is very difficult to inflict meaningful damage on.

[NineLine]

16 hours ago, Qcumber said:

I'm not sure how realistic this is but I keep blowing the tails off after just 2-3 hits.

It doesnt happen too often, but when it does happen I hate it, on any aircraft I hate the tail falling off like it does. One thing I have reported long ago and want to see fixed. 

[NineLine]

51 minutes ago, Skewgear said:

I've blown the odd P-51 tail off but mostly that seems able to absorb several hits. The P-47 is very difficult to inflict meaningful damage on.

AI or both?

[Mr_sukebe]

I watched video this week on YouTube where they showed RAF testing of one of the 30mm 108s.  A single hit on the rear of a Spitfire didn't actually take the tail off, but that's because it was on the ground.  In flight and with additional forces on it, chances are that the tail would have fallen off.

 

They also had stats for a comparison against a B17.  Apparently the average was x4 30mm hits to "on average" take down a B17, or x20 20mm cannon founds from say a 190 to take down a B17.

[NineLine]

Here is a quick and dirty vid on how the spars can be damaged and later cause wing loss under more pressure. 

Pay attention to the bars on the right, these are "health bars" for the spars. (Sorry no this cannot be activated in the release version)

This shows how damage to the spars is not on/off. And that it can impact flight even after being hit. 

 

36 minutes ago, Mr_sukebe said:

I watched video this week on YouTube where they showed RAF testing of one of the 30mm 108s.  A single hit on the rear of a Spitfire didn't actually take the tail off, but that's because it was on the ground.

Yeah, I am not saying it's impossible, but it wouldn't be nearly as clean as we see currently in DCS. And it is doubtful it would happen from the rear like we are shooting most times. WHat I have requested is that before the tail is blown off you would more likely see all the tail surfaces removed, elevators, stabs, etc. And be left with a nub on the tail, it ends up giving the same results and knocking the tail off and looks so much better. 

[Slippa]

Interesting posts NineLine, cheers.

Present for the A20 chaps 

[Qcumber]

6 hours ago, NineLine said:

It doesnt happen too often, but when it does happen I hate it, on any aircraft I hate the tail falling off like it does. One thing I have reported long ago and want to see fixed. 

I managed to do this in quick succession against 3 planes in the A20 mission over Normandy. Unfortunately I don't have a video. Is suspect it was to do with my position relative to the A20s: moving in fast after a dive then ascending to low 6. I managed to catch the tails from underneath.