DM or HE broken.

[BMBM]

4 hours ago, Dre21 said:

So guys are looking into it for Armor too ?

Cause shot placement  is kinda vital  all depending what you are sitting in and what you got against you, if I can't rely on my aim point why play the game,  no wonder players log frustrated , goes for AAA,ATG and Armor players all alike.

 

See above. 

[bmw]

5 hours ago, BMBM said:

Am I clear?

Sarcasm huh?

Didnt you say this: 

Quote

Dudes. I’m not denying there might be a problem. I’m just saying that you can’t trust what you see is *actually* delivering the damage that you expect.

So no, my post wasnt sarcasm and didnt intend it to be so  it was more of a tongue in cheek but a legit question especially when the posts above are showing some players are frustrated and the lack of damage "feedback" especially when it wasnt like this in the past. Mo is the best AA gunner out there so if he sees a problem its most likely a problem.....somewhere.

I think players just want to know if it is reallly being looked into and if a problem was identified.

 

[Kidd27]

5 hours ago, BMBM said:

Sarcasm huh? Thing is when you shoot at a distant target moving laterally, like Mo’s excellent four-hit sequence, you see the puffs well behind the plane. You don’t know which part you hit, only that you DID hit something.

Same thing with tanks. Unless you’re within say 500-1000 m depending on the quality of your optics, it is very hard to see if you hit the top of a roadwheel or just above it; oops on the 45deg angled plate or on the one beside it that you *think* is perpendicular but may in fact be at 77 degrees instead of 90.

Am I clear?

any way to test in the air with 2 people? maybe some answers lay in latency, or the relationship between 2 different computers.

[vanapo]

On 11/25/2021 at 8:56 AM, BMBM said:

Sloppy shooting is punished.

"Sloppy shooting" with 40mm HE rounds would still leave your wing exploding with just a SINGLE HIT. But according to official CRS statements there is "concentrated fire" of those 40mms needed to take down a nimble fighter plane. To say this outcome is "thoroughly researched, not only by us but by the manufacturers and airforces of the time, who ran thousands of tests shooting up actual planes with actual ammo, and collected data from birds that made it home" is just hilarious.

Like I said, boys, according to BMBM this footage below shows that the spitfire could take a another hit to the right wing, one more to the tail and probably one hit on to the center fuselage on top of that and this "sloppy shooting" with 4 or more hits would leave it perfectly fine to fly home and shoot down a Heinkel on its way back.

Working as intended. But intending can be wrong. In this case the thing that needs adjusting is game designer expectation.

 

Edited December 1, 2021 by vanapo

[BMBM]

1 hour ago, bmw said:

.Mo is the best AA gunner out there so if he sees a problem its most likely a problem.....somewhere.

I think players just want to know if it is reallly being looked into and if a problem was identified.

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.

[Kidd27]

15 minutes ago, BMBM said:

 

Kidd, yes we have testers for that very purpose.

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

[BMBM]

Of course

[bogol]

1 hour ago, BMBM said:

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.

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. 

Edited December 1, 2021 by bogol

[vanapo]

4 hours ago, BMBM said:

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.

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):

Quote

I have nothing to do with the flight models or their degradation as a result of damage. I only calculated the energy necessary to destroy the component as a result of live fire tests. I provided all the source documentation to the community so everyone could see just how that was done and how it correlated to those live fire tests. I have no doubt the actual damage model with regards to flight dynamics could be better. That’s a hatch thing though.

If I had been around during the design of these models and coding of the source I would have made some different choices to be sure. Unfortunately all I can do now is insure the input data is correct. Damage induced drag changes are certainly something that should have been done. Differential drag is certainly a thing, and we have taken a step towards test with proper damage levels. At least parts will cease lift production as they should in a damaged state. 

I am unsure what the current damage modeling does once the component fails - whether the collider is discounted at that point or remains. Would have to ask.

I guess everyone just needs to keep in mind that at this point I’m not in a position to recode the client towards more advanced damaging modeling....I can only insure that data or assumptions that were incorrect are corrected to what they should be.

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.

Edited December 1, 2021 by vanapo

[halsey]

19 minutes ago, vanapo said:

 

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?

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.

Edited December 1, 2021 by halsey
adhd

[Mosizlak]

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. 

[jwilly]

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.

Edited December 2, 2021 by jwilly

[vanapo]

19 hours ago, halsey said:

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.

I write almost 600 words about how HE damage effect is too weak due to limitations in the game engine if you put in correct physical values for the limited factors that are implemented.

As I layed out, CRS changed the ammo for 50.cals to full AP only - because they weren't able to penetrate armor plating anymore with full ball ammo only after you put in correct physical values for the limited factors that are implemented. Did all planes with 50.cals in game historically fire AP only? Probably not. Does the game engine's limitations prevent us from getting mixed belts and working incendiary effects? Probably yes. What did CRS do? Find a middle ground on what can be done and what most probably represents reality most.

Of course this shows that CRS has done something right.  That is remodelling the ammo for a gun in order for it to perform more in a way that would be expected from a perticular ww2 gun firing at a ww2 plane in a ww2 context. Something that - I don't know - could be done for 20mm HE that is used by BOTH SIDES as well.

But obviously the takeway here is "vanapo saying CRS side bias".

BTW. I pointed to this problem half a dozen times, other people - especially returning veterans who didn't play the game in a while - are bringing it up again and again, and yet we still start at "sloppy shooting is the problem when 40mm hits don't down a microlight plane" and end with "saying 20mm HE doesn't work is side bias" every single time.

I am done with this. Count me in on the "silence speaks volumes" part.

 

Edited December 2, 2021 by vanapo

[BMBM]

You’re way off base with that description.

50cal was changed to fire ball only after their initial introduction to the game as panzers were being raped left right and center. It was reintroduced this year following the ammo audit - it does however not rape panzers like it used to. Meanwhile axis ap rounds have never been similarly sanctioned, with devastating results for certain armored vehicles.

And yes our belts are mixed.

[beny]

US fighter aircraft used API exclusively.

This is not just an HE issue. I not long ago caught up to an He111 in a Hurricane MkIIb. I put a minimum... MINIMUM... of 1500 rounds of .303 in him all over from engine to engine and all of the fuselage cockpit to tail. It was probably close to 2000 rounds but I'm being conservative. I ran out of ammo and had to let the He111 fly on to the factory.

This is not an ammunition issue IMHO. This is a DM issue.

[foe2]

18 minutes ago, beny said:

US fighter aircraft used API exclusively.

This is not just an HE issue. I not long ago caught up to an He111 in a Hurricane MkIIb. I put a minimum... MINIMUM... of 1500 rounds of .303 in him all over from engine to engine and all of the fuselage cockpit to tail. It was probably close to 2000 rounds but I'm being conservative. I ran out of ammo and had to let the He111 fly on to the factory.

This is not an ammunition issue IMHO. This is a DM issue.

2000 rounds into a HE111 sounds plausable, there is one documented case of a Doriner17 during the battle of Britain taking 7000 rounds and still flying. 

Just now, foe2 said:

 

 

Edited December 2, 2021 by foe2

[halsey]

Historically the belting on American fighters was a mix of AP and AP-T until  (I think) 1941. After it was a mix of API  and API-T.  Ball rounds were  never a common  load out for them. 

I am in full agreement  with the fact that no fighter should  be able to to take a direct hit from a 30mm or 40mm shell and not fall out of the sky. Even a bomber should struggle after a direct hit.  I think the problem  lies in the the aircraft that were toughened up during  the last DM audit (a-20 variants, 190, p38,Hurricane, ect). I have no issues killing 109s, they tend to fall apart with a solid hit. The 190s on the other hand will regularly absorb massive hits and keep trucking.  I know the same is true  on the axis side. 

[Dre21]

22 minutes ago, beny said:

US fighter aircraft used API exclusively.

This is not just an HE issue. I not long ago caught up to an He111 in a Hurricane MkIIb. I put a minimum... MINIMUM... of 1500 rounds of .303 in him all over from engine to engine and all of the fuselage cockpit to tail. It was probably close to 2000 rounds but I'm being conservative. I ran out of ammo and had to let the He111 fly on to the factory.

This is not an ammunition issue IMHO. This is a DM issue.

Well you could have gone the BANZAI route , it would have been a 50/50 shot , either both of you go boom, you go boom and see him flying on or vice versa.

[Mosizlak]

23 minutes ago, halsey said:

Historically the belting on American fighters was a mix of AP and AP-T until  (I think) 1941. After it was a mix of API  and API-T.  Ball rounds were  never a common  load out for them. 

I am in full agreement  with the fact that no fighter should  be able to to take a direct hit from a 30mm or 40mm shell and not fall out of the sky. Even a bomber should struggle after a direct hit.  I think the problem  lies in the the aircraft that were toughened up during  the last DM audit (a-20 variants, 190, p38,Hurricane, ect). I have no issues killing 109s, they tend to fall apart with a solid hit. The 190s on the other hand will regularly absorb massive hits and keep trucking.  I know the same is true  on the axis side. 

Worst is pounding on  planes and still having them be combat effective.  Flying around mildly inconvenienced after absorbing enough damage to bring down a b-29 lol.

[SicnesS]

4 hours ago, halsey said:

Historically the belting on American fighters was a mix of AP and AP-T until  (I think) 1941. After it was a mix of API  and API-T.  Ball rounds were  never a common  load out for them. 

I am in full agreement  with the fact that no fighter should  be able to to take a direct hit from a 30mm or 40mm shell and not fall out of the sky. Even a bomber should struggle after a direct hit.  I think the problem  lies in the the aircraft that were toughened up during  the last DM audit (a-20 variants, 190, p38,Hurricane, ect). I have no issues killing 109s, they tend to fall apart with a solid hit. The 190s on the other hand will regularly absorb massive hits and keep trucking.  I know the same is true  on the axis side. 

Remember when 190s actually showed damage? Pepperidge farms remembers. 

Hurris pretty messed up too. 

[david060]

• Since a “HE fix” patch a long time ago HE creates lots of fragments, but they are very small and are so ineffective as to be irrelevant. As one example the Flak 30’s 20mm HE will actually throw fragments rearward a few meters after exploding off a valid surface (some surfaces cause none), but it requires 30+ such impacts to a crewman to cause enough damage to kill them, even if the fragments are impacting the head. The fragments are also completely stopped by many thin surfaces like the door of the opel truck. So elements are calculated they just have no tangible effect in game. I can only imagine what sort of weirdness is happening with bofors projectiles and aircraft surfaces.

• HE after the fix had a serious problem initially with grenades being unable to kill infantry on some surfaces or kill AI, this could be related.

• It was probably not a good idea to potentially break HE effects on aircraft because a few tankers got strafed. Maybe if there was some similarly game-breaking issue present, but I hope it wasn’t the “axis 20mm HE on a Matilda's engine deck will cause a coolant leak under some circumstances” issue which has been known by veteran players for years.

• Real-world data frequently does not translate in to equivalent game effects in this game, like the HE fix that was supposed to make bombers more effective by making bombs more effective but ended up being a nerf to bombers.

On 11/27/2021 at 10:47 PM, TEX64 said:

IMHO, air in this game is so overpowered and if you really can't kill enough of them to keep them off the deck.  Hundreds of planes available to shoot, bomb, strafe to impact your theatre on the front.  Bombers looping low and slow, searching for singular units and finding them.  We have much work to do in this area from my perspective whether that is fewer planes, fewer airfields, more plentiful supply of AAA guns, more advanced flak platforms, aircraft target predictors, damaged airfield modeling, temporary airfield resupply, deployed AI AAA PPO cannons, camo tents,  etc.

Deployable AA tripods for all light machine gunners. Almost useless in real life but would be very effective in this game, especially since teams wouldn’t be a need to waste precious population on a dedicated AA unit in order to make a plane buzz off.

[jester]

On 12/1/2021 at 1:39 AM, BMBM said:

Sarcasm huh? Thing is when you shoot at a distant target moving laterally, like Mo’s excellent four-hit sequence, you see the puffs well behind the plane. You don’t know which part you hit, only that you DID hit something.

Same thing with tanks. Unless you’re within say 500-1000 m depending on the quality of your optics, it is very hard to see if you hit the top of a roadwheel or just above it; oops on the 45deg angled plate or on the one beside it that you *think* is perpendicular but may in fact be at 77 degrees instead of 90.

Am I clear?

While that player's response was indeed snarky and overall just stupid, the thing your post does is more of simply the same old same old that exists within these forums for decades. Players with x amount of experience know what is usually a kill. Common sense also tells you "yup, that should've been a kill." (Catastrophic kill at that) Like 4x bofors hitting a single engine fighter.

Your point regarding the unknown for the specifics is entirely irrelevant, that much is certainly clear.

Edited December 4, 2021 by jester
clarity

[jester]

On 12/1/2021 at 8:36 AM, BMBM said:

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).

Another example of my previous post's point.

[Mosizlak]

3 hours ago, jester said:

Another example of my previous post's point.

Yeah, I mean, what's the point then?  I have to hit this tiny specific spot on a plane, repeatedly, goin 4-500kph, to have any effect? 

Just look at my vid in this thread. That Boston was completely combat worthy after 4 hits, he stuck around the area for at least 10 mins, and that was with a 190 pounding in after I hit it. 

The Hawk, 2 40mm. Flew off like nothing happened. Was completely combat worthy after, even shot up a 109 so bad the 09 ditched the the Hawk strafed it. 

3 40mm on that last hurricane, not a single thing broke off, and if I didn't get a pilot kill he woulda flown off. I've seen it happen a bunch of times this map. Single engine planes soaking 2-3 40mm and flying off. MANY people have lol. 

[jwilly]

if Scotsman's years-ago post about single 40mm hits anywhere on an early/mid war fighter taking it down was correct, it would seem that it shouldn't be relevant where an AA shell hit. if the AA gunner sees a hit puff, the target should go down.