Spitfire fuselage differs in damage function to other aircraft. #4385

[kamel]

Can't make it break off or alter damage state.

Tested with Fairmile 20mm, single shots till break.

109f4 comparison broke after 4.

Spit 5 failed to break after fifty. The tail section broke off fine.

Didn't check the other spits. Also didn't check whether any drag was added, or penetration of AP from rear aspect.

Same range, same angle, same weapon.

Edited July 5, 2010 by kamel

[DeusWolf]

Need a fix asap or we want klingon Birds Of Prey for Balance.

[mrperea]

Great.... bird of prey, another aircraft with giant wings to be blown off in a split second

[bronco69]

whats new about it??

think all axis knew this before already...

doesnt matter if you shoot at them with 20mm, 30mm or 40mm... they can take loads of hits ... nothing happens.

spitfires are the worst EA to shoot at... hard to hit anyway... and if you hit... they just lol about you

1 hit on my 111 with 40mm... and i explode or lose a wing...

Edited July 5, 2010 by bronco69

[kamel]

The difference is between making inarticulate whines with no proof.

and actually taking the time to test it under controlled circumstances.

I'd also like to point out the rules for this forum area.

Posting non-relevant 'discussion' here is a sure way to get the thread locked, deleted, or ignored.

So either add something useful, or leave.

[lutorm]

The difference is between making inarticulate whines with no proof. and actually taking the time to test it under controlled circumstances.

Word.

[DeusWolf]

So what, we keep invincible planes in air ? allieds dont have enough f-16s in sky? Any response CRS ? hello???

[lutorm]

So what' date=' we keep invincible planes in air ? allieds dont have enough f-16s in sky? Any response CRS ? hello???[/quote']

Report the bug, then we're done here. There are loads of bugs that need fixing. This sort of post add no useful information.

You want to help, you could start by testing all the planes so we know exactly which are affected, and if it's only the fuselage and not the wings, cockpit, engine, etc.

Edited July 6, 2010 by lutorm

[nervous]

On Topic Responses only?

Plenty of Personal Combat Testing to Affirm this is Likely.

...

[Sethorion]

I'm confused.

So the 109's can lose their tailplanes and their entire rear fuselage but the spitfire can only lose its tailplane?

[kamel]

I'm confused.

So the 109's can lose their tailplanes and their entire rear fuselage but the spitfire can only lose its tailplane?

All aircraft can have their fuselage removed by sufficient density of fire. You just don't normally notice because by the time that density of fire is reached... the target is dead/on fire/tailless anyway. [The exception would be AA fire from say... bofors or a 109G's 30mm... but even then would normally take two or more hits.]

The spit's fuselage 'break point' appears bugged.

I just did some drag/penetration tests on some more Spit V's.

It rapidly reaches max 'drag' state with the first few hits... and can barely fly. Max speed 160mph... with WEP.

AP rounds also appear to have no trouble passing through.

It just doesn't break off.

The main thing is that it is there, and documented, and hopefully on the list already.

Whereas it probably wasn't before.

[beazil]

Thanks for your testing Kamel. S!

[Hinfoos]

whats new about it??

think all axis knew this before already...

doesnt matter if you shoot at them with 20mm, 30mm or 40mm... they can take loads of hits ... nothing happens.

spitfires are the worst EA to shoot at... hard to hit anyway... and if you hit... they just lol about you

1 hit on my 111 with 40mm... and i explode or lose a wing...

lol no, not usually

3-4 is pretty accurate

some few times 1-2

[nervous]

Request,

Would you please test this with the equivalent of an e-1 mg or the e-4 mg, just the MG? The MG on these early versions has appeared, many times, to do no drag damage after multiple hits.

Hard enough to fly against a spit5 in an E-1 power wise, but if we are doing no damage at all, we will never be getting any rank...

[berzerkr]

request denied

he did the test with 20mm already no need for mg

[GOPHUR]

Yeah something odd there. I floated one of these to flak island and let it get shot to hell then turned off float. All the other vis dam kicked off but the rear fuselage.

This won;t affect game play as you're already falling out of the sky by this point but needs to get fixed anyhoo. looks like the vis dam is just not kicking in.

Ticketed.

[nervous]

request denied

he did the test with 20mm already no need for mg

I disagree. Since we don't know the full perimeters of this bug, it is possible that the increased holding strength has translated to increased damage resistance. What is the good reasoning in not knowing the extent as much as possible?

I would do this test myself if there were a simple tutorial available, or if someone could tell me a simple of how-to. Would be pleased if someone could PM me, or point me to a place this can happen?

This won;t affect game play as you're already falling out of the sky by this point"

Wondering if the ability to keep the plane in a "controlled" dive increases crash landings, since not having a tail just about ensures full failures.

[DOC]

I don't yet know what the cause is but I know what it ISN'T.

It isn't because the fuselage damage threshold was increased. I suspect it's an art DoF bug where the vis damage isn't triggering. The damage is still being done, and the tail does come off. We have to investigate the fuselage visible damage triggers, but the damage levels were not changed, and haven't been since the plane was created.

It doesn't have deflector sheilds either.

[kamel]

I disagree. Since we don't know the full perimeters of this bug' date=' it is possible that the increased holding strength has translated to increased damage resistance. What is the good reasoning in not knowing the extent as much as possible?[/quote']

Damage is damage, whether KE or HE. If 20mm He and 20mm AP aren't triggering the 'break state', but are adding drag... then it's pretty safe to assume that smaller [and larger] calibers are also doing so.

I would do this test myself if there were a simple tutorial available' date=' or if someone could tell me a simple of how-to. Would be pleased if someone could PM me, or point me to a place this can happen?[/quote']

Training server. You need two accounts [or a friend with an account to come along].

Go to Camp Victoria, Camp Gretchen, or Camp Yvette.

They all sit together... and make testing easy.

Do your tests in a manner that is repeatable, and document it as best you can with screenshots.

Post said results in the bugs forum with as few actual accusations, bias, or use of the word 'nerf' as you can.

Preferably get a second opinion from someone else before you post... just in case you are mistaken, or have incorrect assumptions.

Wondering if the ability to keep the plane in a "controlled" dive increases crash landings' date=' since not having a tail just about ensures full failures.[/quote']

I think you don't quite understand the extend of this.

The tail still falls off if you hit it.

The fuselage, does not.

Typically rear aspect shots will take the tail off before the fuselage breaks... which is fatal in any case.

Damage to the fuselage still causes drag... In the unlikely case that you have caused a spit enough fuselage damage in that it should have broken, but haven't also chopped off the tail, or done other damage making the aircraft unflayable... the fuselage damage will have made the spit pilots life very difficult. Max speed massively down, constant elevator needed to fly level... forget turning.

The only times that this bug would be really noticable are when a large caliber is used, like a bofors or Mk108 30mm. But even they usually need two hits to break a fuselage...

I will be very surprised if the actual K/D stats of spitfires in general change much once this is fixed.

[GOPHUR]

I disagree. Since we don't know the full perimeters of this bug, it is possible that the increased holding strength has translated to increased damage resistance. What is the good reasoning in not knowing the extent as much as possible?

I would do this test myself if there were a simple tutorial available, or if someone could tell me a simple of how-to. Would be pleased if someone could PM me, or point me to a place this can happen?

Wondering if the ability to keep the plane in a "controlled" dive increases crash landings, since not having a tail just about ensures full failures.

Launch two beta clients offline. Fly the spit to an active German FB and land. Spawn AAA.

It is so much easier for us to do this in house with our tools that it is almost a waste of time for you to do so after the initial report.

[frantic0]

Bump. Any word on fix?

Known issues on 1.31:

Outer wings bugged in at least in Spitfires, 09s, FW190...

Fuselage bugged in Spitfires, dewo (falls off with one 20mm hit from side) and p39 bell.

Haven't tested all planes but at least these are affected.

[frantic0]

Bumping until I die / get banned / it's fixed .

[DOC]

It can't change until a new model is built. It takes damage and the thresholds are the same but displays it differently. It was built differently by the original artist (don't know why) and cannot be changed to display damage state in an identical manner as the other planes, but to compensate until a new model can be built we pass that damage off to the tail flight surfaces and control surfaces that would break off on the other model when the fuselage breaks, it's just a ***** because this one won't act the same visually. We have made it act as much the same as we can until we can make it look the same as well.

[jokeri]

It can't change until a new model is built. It takes damage and the thresholds are the same but displays it differently. It was built differently by the original artist (don't know why) and cannot be changed to display damage state in an identical manner as the other planes' date=' but to compensate until a new model can be built we pass that damage off to the tail flight surfaces and control surfaces that would break off on the other model when the fuselage breaks, it's just a ***** because this one won't act the same visually. We have made it act as much the same as we can until we can make it look the same as well.[/quote']

Where I can buy DOC translator? My engrish is not good enough that I understood your answer

Can you tell it more simplier for me

Edited December 2, 2010 by jokeri

[DOC]

Simple answer (although the issue is complex) :-

1. The artist that build the spitfire that behaves differently (visial damage model) built it differently (that's why it behaves differently)

2. We didn't catch this (were actually unaware because it should have been the same) until afterwards

3. We have to build it all over again to make it identical (in visual damage display) to the other spitfires

4. Until this can happen, to compensate for the differance, we apply the "fuselage off" damage to the tail control surfaces so that while the fuselage doesn't come off visually, the plane flies about as well as if it did come off, ie: real badly man

PS: you don't need a translator really, I'm just repeating what I said earlier in point form with different words