Jump to content
Welcome to the virtual battlefield, Guest!

World War II Online is a Massively Multiplayer Online First Person Shooter based in Western Europe between 1939 and 1943. Through land, sea, and air combat using a ultra-realistic game engine, combined with a strategic layer, in the largest game world ever created - We offer the best WWII simulation experience around.

DM or HE broken.


Mosizlak
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • CORNERED RAT
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by vanapo
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CORNERED RAT
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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by bogol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by vanapo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by halsey
adhd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by jwilly
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...