Mosizlak

Allied flak vid

47 posts in this topic

15 minutes ago, firefast said:

Just me or on some of these does the hitbox for the plane seem bigger then the plane itself?

No moz is just the best aa gunner in the game right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't recall questioning his gunning ability.   Nor am I questioning his ability to do what he does.  I am though asking if what im seeing is just me or if its really there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes it looks like the game has aiming-assist code. If you aim very close at long range, the game occasionally gives you a hit.

Judging by results, lots of players aren't capable of aiming close enough to benefit from the aiming assist. Other players don't try. Wayne Gretzky said "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take."

Maybe my perception is wrong, but it wouldn't be unheard-of in gaming to have a small degree of aiming assist in the code to make up for the easy-to-learn but very crude AA gunsights, compared to the historical predictive sights used on many of these guns, which took two or three men to operate and therefore would be impractical to include in a game like this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jwilly said:

Sometimes it looks like the game has aiming-assist code. If you aim very close at long range, the game occasionally gives you a hit.

Judging by results, lots of players aren't capable of aiming close enough to benefit from the aiming assist. Other players don't try. Wayne Gretzky said "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take."

Maybe my perception is wrong, but it wouldn't be unheard-of in gaming to have a small degree of aiming assist in the code to make up for the easy-to-learn but very crude AA gunsights, compared to the historical predictive sights used on many of these guns, which took two or three men to operate and therefore would be impractical to include in a game like this one.

Aiming assist? First time I've ever heard of this in a game. This is an actual thing? I mean in a PvP game and not a single player game? 

Even if it is real, I highly doubt that's in this game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it me or does it very rarely ever take more than two rounds to blow any of the German planes to pieces vs a DB-7/Havoc which can absorb hits like a sponge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, majhavoc said:

Is it me or does it very rarely ever take more than two rounds to blow any of the German planes to pieces vs a DB-7/Havoc which can absorb hits like a sponge.

The difference is night and day, not even kidding. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, majhavoc said:

need to do do a side by side comparison of all the axis vs allied plane kills.

I have a bunch of allied and axis AA vids.  Go look :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's crazy the difference between the allied/axis aircraft and their damage thresholds. Must have been nice to actually shoot down aircraft in one hit. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea about whether or not the Spitfire was able to soak up damage, but judging from how delicate of a plane it is portrayed as, I would guess they take more damage than they should from a RL perspective.  I know the Hurricane was more rugged than its design would suggest, but I'm not sure if it was a rugged aircraft relative to others.  

 

However, I think the DB-7 is roughly in line with its historical capabilities.  The Russians actually considered the A-20 to be "overpowered" engine-wise and gave high praise to the aircraft's structural strength (for both taking hits and performing maneuvers).  

 

@Mosizlak what do you think of when shooting FAF fighters (Hawks, Bells, D.520, etc.)?   I feel like I can sustain groundfire okay in those crates, but I also receive pretty significant flight-altering damage after taking hits.  Nothing like when flying a Spit.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15.4.2017 at 8:04 PM, Mosizlak said:

Lotsa falling LooseWaffle airplane parts here: 

 

look at 0:20 ... 1 hit on 111 and it is on flames. 2nd hit and both engines on fire. LOL. that would never happen to a DB7 ....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, capco said:

I have no idea about whether or not the Spitfire was able to soak up damage, but judging from how delicate of a plane it is portrayed as, I would guess they take more damage than they should from a RL perspective.  I know the Hurricane was more rugged than its design would suggest, but I'm not sure if it was a rugged aircraft relative to others.  

spitfire was not a structurally stout airplane. not that it was in danger of falling apart per se but it just wasn't known as being the kind of plane to get you home with any high probability after taking heavy damage like say ... anything radial and aircooled. the spits wings were also not known to be super strong a problem mentioned frequently as something to watch for in a high speed dive. the dangerously light elevator controls at high speeds presented a very real and actual danger of the wings folding on you. i've read a few stories of pilots dying this way.

 

so no, if anything the spitfire and really all small single engine water cooled planes ... 109, d520 etc none of these should take very much damage before really adverse reactions begin occurring

 

that said, HE shots to a hurricane's tail were known to have less effect if an aluminum tube section wasn't struck or ... i forget what was behind the pilot in a hurricane. battery, aux fuel, radio, sometimes oxygen, control junctions etc could be back there but with the exception of major things like fuel tanks i don't think we model the others. maybe oxygen bottles?

 

 

anyway, with very few exceptions single engine water cooled fighter planes were never known for being particularly robust, and the spit certainly wasn't tops of that list anyway.

 

*edit* just to clarify, once the C wing arrived (with the spit ... 7? and late in the spitV prod cycle late 42 early 43 as i recall) it did improve structural strength a good deal and did so again with the E wing. We aren't talking P47 rugged here though, you lose half a wing in a spit you better GTFO and hit the silk highly doubt it is flying home.

Edited by madrebel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly there were differences in ruggedness of plane designs, but a starting point for evaluation of bomber ruggedness is payload. Higher max payload = more wing root strength and probably tail strength.

That's in real life. I don't know of any aspect of the airplane modeling process that would lead to a simulation-based ruggedness factor. Planes aren't modeled like tanks, where the armor has well understood characteristics and is a key determinant of damage behavior. So the damage behavior of planes has to be mostly CRS-plugged-in parameters, which presumably were originally set with some reference to overall balance requirements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jwilly said:

Certainly there were differences in ruggedness of plane designs, but a starting point for evaluation of bomber ruggedness is payload. Higher max payload = more wing root strength and probably tail strength.

That's in real life. I don't know of any aspect of the airplane modeling process that would lead to a simulation-based ruggedness factor. Planes aren't modeled like tanks, where the armor has well understood characteristics and is a key determinant of damage behavior. So the damage behavior of planes has to be mostly CRS-plugged-in parameters, which presumably were originally set with some reference to overall balance requirements.

Well, the HE-111 has the largest bomb load and is certainly very fragile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

truly amazing Mosizlak!!

When I see that you have knocked me down I change from the air forces to the ground army hahahaha :P

It's extremely difficult to do what you do, you already have a new fan :D

Great work! S!


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jwilly said:

Certainly there were differences in ruggedness of plane designs, but a starting point for evaluation of bomber ruggedness is payload. Higher max payload = more wing root strength and probably tail strength.

That's in real life. I don't know of any aspect of the airplane modeling process that would lead to a simulation-based ruggedness factor. Planes aren't modeled like tanks, where the armor has well understood characteristics and is a key determinant of damage behavior. So the damage behavior of planes has to be mostly CRS-plugged-in parameters, which presumably were originally set with some reference to overall balance requirements.

in theory like in the penetrable wall discussions you could have 'aluminum frame' as well as a 'wood frame'. airplanes are simple like that there were only two types of frame material really. now you can apply different effects upon taking damage. really only applies to HE and its effect but would still be cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

probably just bad modeling.

 

did some FMS damage tests a while ago and found the RAF uses HE MG rounds and their cannons do 3x more damage than the French/American cannons.

the math is around 30MG rounds = 1 french 20mm, or 27 = 1 20mm MG/FF

Edited by major0noob
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, major0noob said:

probably just bad modeling.

 

did some FMS damage tests a while ago and found the RAF uses HE MG rounds and their cannons do 3x more damage than the French/American cannons.

the math is around 30MG rounds = 1 french 20mm, or 27 = 1 20mm MG/FF

Yeah I remember seeing that. It's the same cannon with the same shell (except the AP in the Bell).

 

That makes absolutely no sense lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

after digging around the archives I'm confident its bad/different/odd modeling.

had to sift through a lot of hate and BS i don't want to quote or link threads...

 

got to know @Mosizlak a bit more too, lotta spite against the old team there lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/18/2017 at 10:48 PM, undercova said:

look at 0:20 ... 1 hit on 111 and it is on flames. 2nd hit and both engines on fire. LOL. that would never happen to a DB7 ....

That's over simplifying it, but basically true. Nothing in the axis inventory soaks up damage like the db7 and spitfire. Sure, I get 1 hit kills on them sometimes, but more often than not that is not the case.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, that's what you'd expect to happen but to see these aircraft just fly off after taking 1 - 3x 40mm rounds, doing loops and then making another strafing pass is BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.