Forums

i'm pretty sure @Scotsman posted maybe a decade ago, in a discussion about historical AA effectiveness, that one 40mm hit anywhere on an early/mid WWII fighter would bring it down.

Well, as long as this is on their radar, that's all we can hope for.  If they find everything is performing correctly, then they need to change something, because continuing on with this level of damage planes absorb isn't acceptable. 

The only ammo change to the .50s was to replace the incorrect  ball rounds with ap ammo (not even API if I recall) I don't think that equating this issue with the .50 situation  is the right course of action.

Been there, done that. Scotsman corrected the physical values (velocitiy, joules delivered etc.) of the projectiles. That's it. How many fragments are generated (spoiler: way too few), how shockwaves are simulated, how shockwaves damage surfaces, how damaged surfaces impact flight models, how flight models change due to part damage, how drag is calculated, how drag is incrased by damged parts etc etc- none of this is or was ever in scotsman's hand according to my knowledge. None of this can be deduced simply by the velocity or the delivered joules of a projectile to the point of impact. All of this is of very much importance if we talk about the damage induced by HE on planes. Look at the video above, I posted it many times here now, and tell me how a plane that receives 4 hits of those on different parts of the plane (like on both wings f.e.) will still be able to fly. However, it will in ww2ol, because all of those "parts" will only be badly damaged, the plane will be a bit wonky and fly on. According to you guys, this is perfectly fine, because you need to hit the same part of the wing 2 times with a 30mm or 40mm in order to destroy it and thus down a plane. To quote scotsman (February 22 this year): I have been addressing this many times now. All I am hearing is "the joules a shell is delivering to a part is correct now, all this data has been audited". Well that might be the case, that will be very important regarding AP and other solid shot amo. However, calculating the projectile is only a small fraction (no pun intended) of auditing high explosive and frag damage. The old, probably apparently very incorrect values for the HE amo might have taken into consideration that the game's simulation of HE effects is not very accurate and if you don't compensate for these shortcomings in damage model the HE will turn out much weaker than it should be. Scotsman then "corrected" every projectile by putting in the correct (!) physical data, but if you have a damage model that only models part of reality, putting in correct values might lead to very incorrect results. That's why f.e. the 15mm AP of the 109f2 is more effective in downing planes than the 20mm HE now. It should be the other way around. Funny thing is that people lamented that .50 where not penetrating armor plating anymore after the correction, so all .50cals received different ammo afterwards to account for that. So what do we get for HE not destroying plane surfaces anymore like they should? And I didn't build any strawman. You said, "aircraft DM has made it harder to kill specific components, requiring you to concentrate your fire. Sloppy shooting is punished." Btw. this is what Scotsman did say initially as well. So what you are saying that "concentrated fire" of 30mm and 40mm (hits of the sort shown in the video) is needed to down a plane and thus far spread hits (of the sort shown in the video) are manageable for the struck plane. That's the exact scenario I depicted: getting hit by a 40mm on the left wing, on the right wing, on the tail and still you can RTB. That's what people are complaining about, tthat's what's unrealistic, and yet that's what the game is designed to be like after the ammo audit.

Yes, you can. Simple. Ticket it and give a ticket number. If there is one already, just remind PB what the ticket number is and in what thread it was originally ticketed. If it was not in a thread state it was ticketed via another mechanism. 

Of course

just so im clear, you can get the real time data from both sides of the coin.. yes?

That’s exactly what I’ve been saying. There MAY be a problem; we ARE looking into it. I cannot make it any clearer than that. Beside the problem, should there be one, it is still so that you don’t know from trailing puffs behind the target exactly where you actually did hit. You just know you hit something, that’s all (unless the target is real close and real slow). Vanapo, you will have to argue with Scotsman about the data and effects, as he’s the authority on the subject. And you will please refrain from building straw men, I never said anything of the sort about that video. Kidd, yes we have testers for that very purpose.