PDA

View Full Version : Can Loadouts be set to Default only in Server settings?



RAF74_Buzzsaw
Oct-24-2012, 02:34
Hello

A tech question for you server buffs:

Can the aircraft gun loadouts be set to default loadouts only?

Thanks Buzzsaw

Doc
Oct-24-2012, 02:46
Probably mission why? Is this about X again?

JG52_Krupi
Oct-24-2012, 03:05
It's about pilot kills, so yes another post by a butt hurt red pilot :doh:

This is in reference to tungsten ammo in 109's I believe...

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Oct-24-2012, 04:20
It's about pilot kills, so yes another post by a butt hurt red pilot :doh:
This is in reference to tungsten ammo in 109's I believe...

Lol, And I recall the but-hurt-blue furore with the "De Wilde" ammo too.
My reading of some documentation (Al Deere's book has some comment on this I think?) seems to suggest that De-Wilde was not in common use in 1940. I'd be in favour of a restriction in it's availability - if that were possible.

I don't entirely buy the argument that it is the tungsten only that's resulting in the strange frequency of PKs with only certain pilots. Are the tungsten rounds being made into a scapegoat?

But the only way to prove this, would be to disable the tungsten rounds for a few matches only, to see if there is a difference. Not as a permanent measure, but to test the theory.

JG52_Krupi
Oct-24-2012, 04:34
:D

I agree entirely pstyle I don't use tungsten in my setup I use a more historical belt and get pks...

btw do you recall this thread?

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=28974

The problem was so obvious :(

9./JG52 Jamz Dackel
Oct-24-2012, 06:25
Ere we go again....

9./JG52 Jamz Dackel
Oct-24-2012, 06:29
If any restrictions are goin to be 'forced' upon the players then I'll fly elsewhere...plus if it does happen let's make sure ALL ammo works online as it should all ALL Dmg modelling is correct both of which are not correct presently

Doc
Oct-24-2012, 11:45
I agree. Lets just suffice to say this and pass this along to anyone you hear bitching about X.

X is a close personal Russian friend of mine. I invited him him long time ago. He's a guest of mine. He and I are going to use every bullet in our inventory to dispatch as my of the enemy as humanly possible.

Questions, comments or concerns?

ATAG_Doc

ATAG_JTDawg
Oct-24-2012, 14:04
about load outs being default , on raf side some guns have only tracers = worthless , an i have no probs . with mr x as i have said he has always treated me with respect , i will do the same , i to am getting fed up with this behavior SALUTE

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Oct-24-2012, 14:39
I agree. Lets just suffice to say this and pass this along to anyone you hear bitching about X.

X is a close personal Russian friend of mine. I invited him him long time ago. He's a guest of mine. He and I are going to use every bullet in our inventory to dispatch as my of the enemy as humanly possible.

Questions, comments or concerns?

ATAG_Doc

Salute

Please don't link me with the guys who have said Mr. X is hacking. I have not made that accusation, those were made by others, you will note I stated in the post on the 1C forums that I didn't believe he was hacking. Yes, I have noticed some anomalies when flying against him, ie. exiting the server, etc, but those are not hacking. It is however, clear he is using the Tungsten ammo.

My post was simply to ask if restricting ammo loadout was possible. Your decisions re. your own server are of course your own. RAF74 has its own dedicated server, and if we get involved in CoD more in the future, we will be using it in various single occasion online events which attempt to replicate historical occurences. Those events will restrict ammo to historical loadouts if possible, as well as attempting to stick to historical situations re. aircraft, targets, etc.

Thanks for your reply.

RAF74_Buzzsaw F/L

ATAG_Bliss
Oct-24-2012, 15:59
Can Loadouts be set to Default only in Server settings? - No they can't. Everyone please stop worrying about it. Loadouts are not going to be limited. People are free to use whatever load out that 1C gave with the planes.

Also - banter is ok. But lets try to keep the personal attacks down to a minimum. There's no reason for it. We are all here to have fun.

9./JG52 Jamz Dackel
Oct-24-2012, 16:25
Can Loadouts be set to Default only in Server settings? - No they can't. Everyone please stop worrying about it. Loadouts are not going to be limited. People are free to use whatever load out that 1C gave with the planes.

Also - banter is ok. But lets try to keep the personal attacks down to a minimum. There's no reason for it. We are all here to have fun.

Best thing ive read all day...

Apart from Krupi actualy having webbed feet

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Oct-24-2012, 16:47
Can Loadouts be set to Default only in Server settings? - No they can't.

Salute Bliss

Thanks for your clarification. I have another question if you have the time to reply:

Do the server logs indicate what loadout was taken by a individual pilot?

The reason I ask, is that again, if a RAF74 event happened on our server, we would want historical loadouts , would want to be able to monitor whether players used other than historical.

Thanks for your patience.

RAF74_Buzzsaw

ATAG_Bliss
Oct-24-2012, 16:52
The loads outs are not logged in anyway.

MK.Mr.X
Oct-25-2012, 01:14
Salute
Please don't link me with the guys who have said Mr. X is hacking. I have not made that accusation, those were made by others, you will note I stated in the post on the 1C forums that I didn't believe he was hacking. Yes, I have noticed some anomalies when flying against him, ie. exiting the server, etc, but those are not hacking. It is however, clear he is using the Tungsten ammo.

My post was simply to ask if restricting ammo loadout was possible. Your decisions re. your own server are of course your own. RAF74 has its own dedicated server, and if we get involved in CoD more in the future, we will be using it in various single occasion online events which attempt to replicate historical occurences. Those events will restrict ammo to historical loadouts if possible, as well as attempting to stick to historical situations re. aircraft, targets, etc.

Thanks for your reply.

RAF74_Buzzsaw F/L

Are you saying that any blue pilot, who will put all the bullets in a tungsten-carbide tape would kill the pilots? This is a joke?
.I'll tell you this:
Flying over the red side, I also often killed pilots. The thing is that there are pilots who fired on the plane. I am moving around only in the pilot.
If you can not do it, the more fly and train in the shooting.
And the excuses in historicity, is you big minus...

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Oct-25-2012, 02:00
Are you saying that any blue pilot, who will put all the bullets in a tungsten-carbide tape would kill the pilots? This is a joke?
.I'll tell you this:
Flying over the red side, I also often killed pilots. The thing is that there are pilots who fired on the plane. I am moving around only in the pilot.
If you can not do it, the more fly and train in the shooting.
And the excuses in historicity, is you big minus...

Salute Mr. X

So I see you showed up to take a shot at me, even though I am not the one who called you a Hacker and my comments about the Tungsten rounds were not aimed at you, but at the game allowing this. Of course players who don't care about historical reality are going to use an advantage if its given to them, who can blame them?

But since you decided to attack me and my abilities as a pilot and my character...

If you are concerned about being labelled as less than authentic for using the tungsten rounds, don't worry, because everyone is using them now.

And I don't make "excuses in historicity", I fly these games because they promise to simulate history. For those who fly them for other reasons, I say fine, enjoy yourself.

But in no way am I a "Big Minus" because I ask for a realistic Simulation when that was what I was promised by the Developers.

And as far as my skills as an online pilot are concerned, I'll leave the rest up to online play, I'm sure we'll meet again, no doubt on the Dunkirk server, I notice you don't like to fly against the Spit II's, but prefer the low power Hurricanes as targets with your friend helping you out.

Best of Luck

JG52_Krupi
Oct-25-2012, 02:42
Okay buzzsaw if its realism you are after then you won't mind if the blue side have the 109F2.

Do you really think that if cannons were doing the job properly anyone would bother with the E1, shoot a hurricane with a mineshell it's wing will pop off do the same to a spit and nothing but a large hole appears and this doesn't cause any problems with the flight model!!!!

I use an e1 with a historical clip and still get pilot kills.

Oh and when did Mr X insult your skills, all he said was that he aims for the pilot rather than the machine?!

You need to grow up!

Oh and perhaps Mr X has more hurricane kills as the spit as has been mentioned countless time is a flying tank.

MK.Mr.X
Oct-25-2012, 02:44
I notice you don't like to fly against the Spit II's, but prefer the low power Hurricanes as targets with your friend helping you out.
If you want to insult me with this charge, the big disadvantage to you I correctly set.:thmbdwn:
If you do not know, I'm flying alone with 3-00 to 8-00 in Moscow. I have a 10-00 in the morning, when Moscow 3-00. At this time on the server 50. I do not care what the opponent I meet along the way, and in any quantity.

Wolf
Oct-25-2012, 03:28
If you want to insult me with this charge, the big disadvantage to you I correctly set.:thmbdwn:
If you do not know, I'm flying alone with 3-00 to 8-00 in Moscow. I have a 10-00 in the morning, when Moscow 3-00. At this time on the server 50. I do not care what the opponent I meet along the way, and in any quantity.

I like your attitude Mr.X. I am the same. I don't care for the odds. :salute: From Melbourne Australia!

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Oct-25-2012, 04:18
Salute to All

To Krupi:

I'm not going to argue with you on your own forums.

To ATAG:

I thank you for your contributions to the game, your excellent server and many useful pieces of written and video advice.

To Mr. X

As I said, I hope to meet you on the server, depending on real life demands, where I too, have been flying alone for most of the time I have spent in CoD. I am sure it will be interesting.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Oct-25-2012, 04:18
I wish, I wish, I wish,

That Mr.X spoke perfect English so we could pay him to run a tutorial!
I would definitely attend ;)

Salute!

9./JG52 Jamz Dackel
Oct-25-2012, 05:26
Salute Mr. X

So I see you showed up to take a shot at me, even though I am not the one who called you a Hacker and my comments about the Tungsten rounds were not aimed at you, but at the game allowing this. Of course players who don't care about historical reality are going to use an advantage if its given to them, who can blame them?

But since you decided to attack me and my abilities as a pilot and my character...

If you are concerned about being labelled as less than authentic for using the tungsten rounds, don't worry, because everyone is using them now.

And I don't make "excuses in historicity", I fly these games because they promise to simulate history. For those who fly them for other reasons, I say fine, enjoy yourself.

But in no way am I a "Big Minus" because I ask for a realistic Simulation when that was what I was promised by the Developers.

And as far as my skills as an online pilot are concerned, I'll leave the rest up to online play, I'm sure we'll meet again, no doubt on the Dunkirk server, I notice you don't like to fly against the Spit II's, but prefer the low power Hurricanes as targets with your friend helping you out.

Best of Luck

Dude, I got no beef with you but why are you even flying CoD when you keep banging on about Realistic this n that?

Start your server with restricted ammo belts and fly there, spits absorbing cannon rounds and being able to circle enemy airbases absorbing flak till they run out of ammo AINT historical..

MrX didnt have a shot at you, read the post again...he suggested your wrong on the tungsten ammo loaded to the max is why were getting pks...wrong, serioulsy fella go fly a 109e1 and air for the pilot area in a spit or hurri then come back and explain your findings..

Your upsetting the apple cart so maybe its time to drop yer agenda...when everything isas it should be and the ccorrect DMs and ballistics of the ammo are modeled then maybe your have a small argument..

You crack me up, you bang on about historical accuracy.....really? Are you actually flying these AC in game online?

Interesting

MadTommy
Oct-25-2012, 06:05
blah blah to any squabbling etc

But historical loadout / plane type misisons are always nice for variety.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Oct-25-2012, 06:21
, spits absorbing cannon rounds and being able to circle enemy airbases absorbing flak till they run out of ammo AINT historical..


Hmm, this is interesting.

Absorbing Cannon Rounds:
Air frames must be capable of absorbing some damage, and that includes cannon rounds. It must be physically possible, for a certain number of cannon rounds to hit a spitfire and for it still be flyable to varying degrees depending exactly where the rounds hit, and to what quantity. Without some further detail about exactly how many rounds entered an aircraft, and at what location, I'm going to pass this off as nothing more than anecdote.

Flying over bases and not getting killed by flak
Firstly, it's not particularly often that you'll find red aircraft flying over blue bases (in all maps currently online). We all know that there is vastly more combat over red airfields than there is blue fields. Therefore, statistically speaking, it's more likely for any single blue plane to be shot down by red flak than for a red plane to be shot down by blue flak for that reason = blues are more exposed to red flak.

In addition to the above (the frequency of blue deaths to red flak) the dea that the spitfires might somehow be invulnerable to flak is, I think, not supported.
I watched last night as a group of 5 [maybe 4] spitfires (flown by the guys who use the =player= tags) on the Dunkirk map flew down to the 109 base in K5? Within about 5 minutes, all 5 had been shot down. Only two of them by blue aircraft. The other three were destroyed by flak. It's empirically demonstrated that Spitfires are vulnerable to flak.

I'll start taking screen shots of the server damage output messages to show this, if anyone thinks it's a nonsense.

In addition to this, spitfires are vulnerable to friendly flak too, if they find themselves coincidental in the same space as a friendly round - rare indeed, but it does happen now and then.



Let's try to be a bit more systematic about our critiques of the game. We wouldn't want to, in your own words, become "a typical pilot who looks for excuses"....

JG52_Krupi
Oct-25-2012, 06:50
Firstly the hurricane and other 109 are easily damaged by cannons if you think that the spitfire is somehow much stronger than these two your very wrong.

The spitfire was designed with stressed skins, what this meant was that the internal structure didn't need to be as strong and therefore could be lighter. However this would mean any damage to the skin would have drastic impacts on how much load the wing would be able to take. So when you see a spit merrily flying along with three huge holes in his right wing then it's BULLSHIT! The pilot would be bailing out not turning neck breaking turns which in real life would have ripped the wing off as the structure underneath was not able to cope with the stress.

Now take the hurri and 109 the hurri was originally a fabric covered aircraft and was changed to stressed skin aircraft the 109 was also a stressed skin aircraft how come these aircraft in game are knocked out of the sky by cannon hits and the not the spit, simple reason the spit damage model is bugged A VERY SIMPLE FACT!! :doh:

I agree with the flak as its the only thing on the game that can cause structural failure to the spit...

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Oct-25-2012, 06:58
Firstly the hurricane and other 109 are easily damaged by cannons if you think that the spitfire is somehow much stronger than these two your very wrong.

As yet, no-one has produced a like-for-like test. So, as I said, I'm going to treat this as nothing more than anecdote.
I'd be happy to help in testing this. I will accept the results, provided we agree to a methodology for the test in advance and stick to it. If we can show, through proper testing, that the Spit is somehow abnormally less vulnerable to cannon rounds in the game, then I will accept that there is a major modelling issue.


So when you see a spit merrily flying along with three huge holes in his right wing then it's BULLSHIT! The pilot would be bailing out not turning neck breaking turns which in real life would have ripped the wing off as the structure underneath was not able to cope with the stress.

Firstly, how do you know that when you "see" damage, that the flight model in that spitfire is recording damage. Perhaps the damage decal shows within a "range" of damage for that part. If the damage range, is , say 2%-50% damage, how do you know the spit is not actually flying along with only 2% damage to that part - that is,. the decal is on but the model is only at the lowest end of its window.

As far as I am aware, there are three basic damage decals for the spit wings;
1. A few bullet holes in the skin. As far as I can tell when I see this, there is no obvious impact on fly ability.
2. Some larger gaps, where I can see the ground texture through the wings. Without doubt, every time I see this there is an impact on flight. The aircraft will roll to one side more, and there is a greater propensity to stall. However, this needs to be tested. I don't expect you to take my word for it.
3. The end section of the wing missing/ torn away. (I'm not talking about the clipped-wing thing). In this case, flying is damned difficult. The aircraft rolls all the time, and will stall at the slightest suggestion of wing load.

There is another case where you wing is missing. I've never been able to fly with that scenario.


Now take the hurri and 109 the hurri was originally a fabric covered aircraft and was changed to stressed skin aircraft the 109 was also a stressed skin aircraft how come these aircraft in game are knocked out of the sky by cannon hits and the not the spit, simple reason the spit damage model is bugged A VERY SIMPLE FACT!! :doh:
I don't accept the conclusion, because I'm not convinced of the premise. Until we do some testing.

JG52_Krupi
Oct-25-2012, 08:05
Of course, I am up for some testing but I can't do it tonight (squad training)

Please don't think I am a luftwhiner, I just want historical accuracy in the game and we cant agree on even FM so you can imagine how damage modelling will be even worse :)

9./JG52 Jamz Dackel
Oct-25-2012, 08:25
After this weekend I'd be happy to text most scenarios..I'm on prime time..

My tests will include 109 max operational altitude, Non working Beo's online, coolant system damage whenever a 303hits airframe

Spit tests would include the ability or lack of to set it alight, max dive speed structural damage and DMG count from cannon rounds..

After all this thread is about the 'historical accuracy' isn't it?

JG52_Krupi
Oct-25-2012, 08:43
I think both the 109 and spits max dive has been tested and is about correct iirc and personally I see no problem with the new coolant dm I think everyone just has to get used to it, it was annoying watching 109 flying around for an hour spraying water out its coolant system.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Oct-25-2012, 08:46
This is good.
TESTING!

There are two points to be clear about.

We need to be clear about when we are tesing (1) mis-match in modelling within the game (i.e. if spitfires are somehow invulnerable to "x", whereas all other aircraft are not) or if we are testing (2) historical inaccuracies.

1 is easier to test for because we just run the same test with different variables and see what the outcome is
2 (historical inaccuracies) is a lot harder to test, because we have to agree on what the historically accurate situation is in the first place... However, basic things like ceiling, we should be able to agree on I would think!

Personally I can accept some historical inaccuracy within the game. Some stuff we just don't know (exactly how many bullets could a particular type take?). Exactly how many units of 109s were using exactly what combinations of ammo? I like to think we can achieve broad historical accuracy, but a game will never model the "real thing" down to all the minutiae.

As a bit of an aside - but related to the topics at hand:
Lets' start with the current issue, the apparent invulnerability of the spitfire.
I think we can test this by having us just fly together and shoot up some wings and see how the different types fly. Does the spitfire fly according to an undamaged model or not? Do the other types fly to a damaged model or not?
I think that's a good start

As a purely anecdotal piece of evidence. I just went online at lunch (only 30 minutes ago) and had a strangely coincidental moment!
I has a head on pass with Drinkins at 16,000ft. Me in a spit 2a, him in a 109E4.
Drinkins hit my wing with cannons, in a single pass. Not more than a half of a second burst -0 so only a few rounds would have gone into the wing. I asked him on chat and he confirmed they were cannon rounds.
I have attached two images of the damage he did. This is what I earlier referred to as the damage decal where I can see through the wings. - but the ailersns themselves were still intact.
10861087
There was a indefinably reduction in roll rate, and it was reduced in one direction more than the other.
There is no way I could have continued to fight on equal terms, my spitfire was NOT combat-ready any more. I was not be able to achieve the normal roll rate which is vital in the spit.

I recorded my flight down after this incident, rolling in each direction at maximum deflection to chow the reduced roll rate. I am happy to email this track to whoever asks for it.

I am 100% confident that cannon rounds CAN and DO do damage to the spitfire 2a. And that a few rounds in the wing will drastically reduce its combat performance.

JG52_Krupi
Oct-25-2012, 08:53
I think you missed my point I don't think the spit is invulnerable, cannons do cause damage but unlike the hurri and 109 a cannon shell can't blow off a spits wing.

(I know I said it didnt do anything before but I was just pissed off with with buzzsaws whining)

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Oct-25-2012, 09:03
I think you missed my point I don't think the spit is invulnerable, cannons do cause damage but unlike the hurri and 109 a cannon shell can't blow off a spits wing. :salute:

OK, gotcha. Cheers. That is a slight variation on what you had said earlier. I hope you'll forgive me for interpreting this "shoot a hurricane with a mineshell it's wing will pop off do the same to a spit and nothing but a large hole appears and this doesn't cause any problems with the flight model" to mean that putting cannon rounds into a spitfire wing would NOT affected its flight performance. I'm trying to respond to the discussion as accurately as possible, so it's best to say exactly what we mean, rather than assume others will be able to work it out ;)

By way of clarification:

I agree that large holes do appear in spit wings if they receive cannon shells
I'm not sure, though, if it is impossible to blow the whole wing off - although I have had some wings completely torn away - but I'm unable to confirm the ammo type that caused it.


For the record, Drikins recommends the "Fugel" cannon rounds... He was giving them high praise on the server today.

JG52_Krupi
Oct-25-2012, 09:07
See my post above (edited 1 min before your post) I just said that out of frustration my appologize :salute:

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Oct-25-2012, 09:13
See my post above (edited 1 min before your post) I just said that out of frustrating my appologize :salute:

No worries!

Ataros
Oct-25-2012, 13:20
Players can select loadouts only for planes spawned at spawn-points. If a plane is inserted to the mission via script and/or submission, loadouts are per-defined by mission-designer and can not be changed. In practice such aircrafts can be spawned via a Mission-Menu or text console commands using a modification of this script http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34939

Therefore it is possible to restrict loadouts if someone decides to run a restricted server. Maybe there is a better way to do this if there is a C# method that returns type of ammo fired or loaded which I do not know about.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Oct-25-2012, 14:41
Players can select loadouts only for planes spawned at spawn-points. If a plane is inserted to the mission via script and/or submission, loadouts are per-defined by mission-designer and can not be changed. In practice such aircrafts can be spawned via a Mission-Menu or text console commands using a modification of this script http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34939

Therefore it is possible to restrict loadouts if someone decides to run a restricted server. Maybe there is a better way to do this if there is a C# method that returns type of ammo fired or loaded which I do not know about.

Salute Ataros

Thanks for your information.

And congratulations on your good flying in the competition.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Oct-25-2012, 15:19
As yet, no-one has produced a like-for-like test. So, as I said, I'm going to treat this as nothing more than anecdote.
I'd be happy to help in testing this. I will accept the results, provided we agree to a methodology for the test in advance and stick to it. If we can show, through proper testing, that the Spit is somehow abnormally less vulnerable to cannon rounds in the game, then I will accept that there is a major modelling issue.



Firstly, how do you know that when you "see" damage, that the flight model in that spitfire is recording damage. Perhaps the damage decal shows within a "range" of damage for that part. If the damage range, is , say 2%-50% damage, how do you know the spit is not actually flying along with only 2% damage to that part - that is,. the decal is on but the model is only at the lowest end of its window.

As far as I am aware, there are three basic damage decals for the spit wings;
1. A few bullet holes in the skin. As far as I can tell when I see this, there is no obvious impact on fly ability.
2. Some larger gaps, where I can see the ground texture through the wings. Without doubt, every time I see this there is an impact on flight. The aircraft will roll to one side more, and there is a greater propensity to stall. However, this needs to be tested. I don't expect you to take my word for it.
3. The end section of the wing missing/ torn away. (I'm not talking about the clipped-wing thing). In this case, flying is damned difficult. The aircraft rolls all the time, and will stall at the slightest suggestion of wing load.

There is another case where you wing is missing. I've never been able to fly with that scenario.


I don't accept the conclusion, because I'm not convinced of the premise. Until we do some testing.

Salute pstyle

+1 to your comments.

The only way to determine whether or not the Spitfire's damage model is bugged, is by doing systematic testing.

That means shooting at the aircraft, in flight, and noting the effects. (recording it obviously, noting the damages and noting the effects on flight)

For everyone's reference, this is a cutaway drawing of a Spitfire wing, (not all shown) and you can see the basic structure.

http://www.geocities.ws/ciscotland/SpitfireCutAwayLRG.jpg

There is a main spar situated towards the leading edge, and a secondary spar towards the trailing edge. These spars are a major part of the strength of the wing, but can't support it entirely under high G loading, under those loads, the wing structure requires the additional support of the aluminum skin with the ribs and cross hatching. If a lot of the skin and ribs are blown away, the spars will fail under G loading.

Between the spars is a large space. If an AP 20mm round hit between the spars, there is a good chance it would pass through without doing any serious damage, leaving just a small hole. A 20mm M-Geschoss or ordinary 20mm HE round hitting between the spars and exploding has the advantage of blowing off the skin above and below and likely damaging the ribs, but it is also possible the round might not affect the structure enough to cause a collapse. On the other hand, if an AP 20mm round hit the forward main spar at an angle which didn't cause it to deflect off, there would likely be an immediate collapse. M-Geschoss or HE rounds did not have the penetrative power of an AP round so they would not necessarily be able to destroy the spar, but again, at minimum, would blow off the skin above and below, and destroy or damage the ribs and might cause a collapse. A hit on the trailing spar would not necessarily cause a collapse.

Spitfire wings were tested to 13 G's in the factory before they failed.

You will note the Spitfire had a more heavily built wing than the 109 for one very simple reason, the landing gear support point was in the wing of the Spitfire, and the wing had to be able to support the weight of the aircraft when it landed.

In contrast, the 109s' landing gear support point was in the fuselage, the wing was therefore able to be built more lightly, saving weight. The 109 had one single box spar in the center of the wing. Any hits on this spar with an AP round at a direct angle would immediately collapse the wing. HE rounds would have the same effect as on the Spitfire, blowing off skin and ribs, enough removed and the wing would collapse under G.

http://img542.imageshack.us/img542/1264/messerschmittbf109e1939.jpg

CLIFFS OF DOVER's damage model is different from IL-2 1946, in that it is much more specific. There are actually damage boxes for the wing spars and other sections of the wing. Wing spars are rated on their durability, vary from aircraft to aircraft.

Jugdriver
Oct-26-2012, 16:05
cannons do cause damage but unlike the hurri and 109 a cannon shell can't blow off a spits wing.

I have had a Spitfire wing blown off several times by 109 cannon fire, it does not happen often, but it does happen.

I am of the opinion there is often a difference between what we see happen in the game and what is recorded by the server, in essence a net code issue. I made (from what I saw) several good hits on a G.50 today including getting smoke and a small fire at the rear of the aircraft and some convincing hits on the inner wing but at the end of the mission when the damage report came up there was no mention of any damage to a G.50, you can’t cause smoke and fire without damage. Either the server did not record the damage for some reason or what I saw did not happen according to the game.

As for the large holes in Spitfire wings they do cause performance and control degradation in varying degrees however I would think, even though I am not an expert on aircraft structural damage, that they would cause more degradation than modeled (and would become very susceptible to failure if pushed), same for when a 109 is turned into a fireball then fly’s away like nothing happened. There is some abnormality with aircraft damage and I am not 100% sure if it is net code related like I mentioned before or DM related or a combo of both, which I suspect.

JD
AKA_MattE

ATAG_Colander
Oct-26-2012, 16:16
Either the server did not record the damage for some reason or what I saw did not happen according to the game.

What you see on the screen is only damages to internal parts. For example, if you set the cloth of a flap on fire, it does not generate an event (and you'll see fire/smoke while it burns) but if you hit the flap control wire, it does.

I might have to double check the damage report just to make sure I'm not missing something though.



when a 109 is turned into a fireball then fly’s away like nothing happened.
I think they changed this on the last patch. Now the pilot burns after a few seconds if he stays in the plane.

Jugdriver
Oct-26-2012, 16:27
It is possible that I did not hit anything internal, but it would have been bad luck or a visual issue considering the number of time it looked like I hit the plane. I am starting to wonder if this has something to do with when kills don’t get registered as well, certain events do not get recorded correctly by the server because of net code issues.

Just a thought.

JD
AKA_MattE

ATAG_Colander
Oct-26-2012, 16:35
Always a possibility in with case there's nothing we can do about it.

Jugdriver
Oct-26-2012, 16:53
Always a possibility in with case there's nothing we can do about it.

We can just hope (if it is happening) it gets addressed in "Battle of -insert favorite Russian city-"


JD
AKA_MattE

Dutch
Oct-26-2012, 20:56
My Great Aunt had a fantastic collection of knicker elastic.

Just thought I'd mention the fact.

I used to pilfer the collection in order to make catapults. As a result, it may well be that Queen Victoria's knickers indirectly killed a duck in Stamford Park, Ashton-under-Lyne, during the 1960s.

Isn't History strange?

:goofy

Oh no. It's those horse tranks again.......

ATAG_Colander
Oct-26-2012, 21:07
Dutch,

It all makes sense to me in fact, now that you mention it, we have a saying in Venezuela that loosely translated reads:
If my grandmother had wheels, she would be a bicycle.

:)

Dutch
Oct-26-2012, 21:10
Dutch,

It all makes sense to me in fact, now that you mention it, we have a saying in Venezuela that loosely translated reads:
If my grandmother had wheels, she would be a bicycle.

:)

Ah yes. In England that would read, 'If my Auntie had Balls, she'd be my Uncle'. :)