PDA

View Full Version : The DM for Spits!



Attila
Feb-25-2013, 15:14
First: Thx for your work with "THE PATCH"! It just looks amazing!:thumbsup:

Now something that isn't so great (IMO). I think the DM for the Spit cant be realistic! I watched many interviews with Luftwaffe- and RAF-veterans and they told more then less the same:
2 or 3 hits with the 20mm and a Spit was done!
At the moment the situation is this: you can fill a Spit with 20mm Minengeschosse and nothing happens! The Spit maybe looks like a Swiss cheese, but that's it!
On the contrary a 109 is done after a lucky shot in the radiator! (it might be realistic I read about it)
The DM for the Hurri is OK for me.

What are you thinking about? Do you change the DM in a later patch?

PS: Sorry for my "English"!:D

ATAG_Bliss
Feb-25-2013, 15:40
The damage model/weapons will be looked upon at a later date. All this take lots of time.

Mattias
Feb-25-2013, 15:48
First: Thx for your work with "THE PATCH"! It just looks amazing!:thumbsup:

Now something that isn't so great (IMO). I think the DM for the Spit cant be realistic! I watched many interviews with Luftwaffe- and RAF-veterans and they told more then less the same:
2 or 3 hits with the 20mm and a Spit was done!
At the moment the situation is this: you can fill a Spit with 20mm Minengeschosse and nothing happens! The Spit maybe looks like a Swiss cheese, but that's it!
On the contrary a 109 is done after a lucky shot in the radiator! (it might be realistic I read about it)
The DM for the Hurri is OK for me.

What are you thinking about? Do you change the DM in a later patch?

PS: Sorry for my "English"!:D

:salute:

I cannot comment on the specific problem you describe, but work on the damage models and various ammo types are on the to-do list.

EDIT: Bliss beat me to it :doh: I need to get faster fingers :D

Cheers/m

Macro
Feb-25-2013, 15:51
First: Thx for your work with "THE PATCH"! It just looks amazing!:thumbsup:

Now something that isn't so great (IMO). I think the DM for the Spit cant be realistic! I watched many interviews with Luftwaffe- and RAF-veterans and they told more then less the same:
2 or 3 hits with the 20mm and a Spit was done!
At the moment the situation is this: you can fill a Spit with 20mm Minengeschosse and nothing happens! The Spit maybe looks like a Swiss cheese, but that's it!
On the contrary a 109 is done after a lucky shot in the radiator! (it might be realistic I read about it)
The DM for the Hurri is OK for me.

What are you thinking about? Do you change the DM in a later patch?

PS: Sorry for my "English"!:D

lol i cant beleive i just read about a 109 pilot moaning about guns...lmao!

cant fill a spit full of mine shells and nothing happens. 1 on the wing has serious repercussions for the spit pilot in turning. it makes one wing drop and cant turn sharply, if it doesnt kill him. usually all the guns stop working too on that side. and 1 .303 in the rad is enough to make him turn home. The wing should be destructible by the shells tho, I never see that in game on the spit. :thumbsup:

what i'd give for some 20mm's in the spit. hmmmmmm :D

SlipBall
Feb-25-2013, 16:00
One or two cannon rounds will do it on any Spit in game :D

2031

Attila
Feb-25-2013, 16:09
:salute:

I cannot comment on the specific problem you describe, but work on the damage models and various ammo types are on the to-do list.

EDIT: Bliss beat me to it :doh: I need to get faster fingers :D

Cheers/m


These are realy good news! Thx alot for your efforts! It makes me happy that people like you (TF), make the best of this sim!
:salute:

Attila
Feb-25-2013, 16:13
One or two cannon rounds will do it on any Spit in game :D

2031

If you hit the pilot...then it's enough! If not, most the time the Spit can fly back home!(extremly rarely that i cutted a wing, or stuff like that). :-)

Catseye
Feb-25-2013, 16:20
First: Thx for your work with "THE PATCH"! It just looks amazing!:thumbsup:

Now something that isn't so great (IMO). I think the DM for the Spit cant be realistic! I watched many interviews with Luftwaffe- and RAF-veterans and they told more then less the same:
2 or 3 hits with the 20mm and a Spit was done!
At the moment the situation is this: you can fill a Spit with 20mm Minengeschosse and nothing happens! The Spit maybe looks like a Swiss cheese, but that's it!
On the contrary a 109 is done after a lucky shot in the radiator! (it might be realistic I read about it)
The DM for the Hurri is OK for me.

What are you thinking about? Do you change the DM in a later patch?

PS: Sorry for my "English"!:D

Hi Attila,
TF is working hard on the flight models at this time with visual and sound improvements as well.

The weapons and damage model will be done in a future patch as considerable amount of work is required in this area and TF wanted to have the flight model corrected first.

The damage modelling is high on the to-do list.

Regards,

SlipBall
Feb-25-2013, 16:31
If you hit the pilot...then it's enough! If not, most the time the Spit can fly back home!(extremly rarely that i cutted a wing, or stuff like that). :-)

I don't think you should ever aim for the wings, concentrate on a larger surface area target, such as rudder and fuselage...wing most times is a very narrow target profile :D
the pilot ? I have message turned off so don't know...there was a lot of damage though

vranac
Feb-25-2013, 18:59
lol i cant beleive i just read about a 109 pilot moaning about guns...lmao!

cant fill a spit full of mine shells and nothing happens. 1 on the wing has serious repercussions for the spit pilot in turning. it makes one wing drop and cant turn sharply, if it doesnt kill him. usually all the guns stop working too on that side. and 1 .303 in the rad is enough to make him turn home. The wing should be destructible by the shells tho, I never see that in game on the spit. :thumbsup:

what i'd give for some 20mm's in the spit. hmmmmmm :D

+1

when you hit spit in the wing he is out of the game , cant turn, cant climb and he is slower.

Try to hit engine, cockpit , tail for better results.

Kling
Feb-25-2013, 22:51
Attila as a 109 pilot i must say that I do find the 20mm very very powerful! Even online I very often canot hold myself back from making a slow flypast next to my victim just to look at the damage I have made. It does look spectacular. On ATAG you can now a days also press ESC and see what damage you have caused you enemy. Not very realistic maybe but never the less it gives you an indication of the destruction you make with the 20mm.

There is a DM issue with oil hits and radiator hits in game. But this goes for both blue side and red side. If you recieve a radiator hit, your engine will fail within ca 2min no matter what you. Thats a bit unrealistic as you would expect that diving home with full open rads and on idle power would make the engine last a bit longer...

Same thing with oil hits. If you system takes an oil hit, you also have about 2mins before engine fails. This is even more unrealistic as there are plenty of report of pilots who made it across the channel with oil leaking out. These are thwo things that were changed in the last official patch made by 1C. In the previous patches you could fly forever with leaking oil/coolant and that was even more unrealistic, so the devs went too extreme in the other diection instead. At this point its virtually pointless to even try make it home if you have engine damage, unless your base is right under you. This is one feature I dearly miss, the struggle to nurse my damaged plane back to base while watching those temperatures rising, praying that the engine will last until I land.. :)

Anyway, you can have full trust in TF and that when time permits, they will look at it!
So far there is not one single issue that I have read about on this forum that they have not said that they will look into when times comes! Its a great feelig knowing that TF and the rest of us are seeing the same bugs. With the old 1C, you simply would get the answer that the bug cannot be fixed or no answer at all.

Cheers

SlipBall
Feb-26-2013, 02:43
The cannon rounds are devastating I hardly ever use them because of that...I'm more of a surprise stalker/sniper with MG

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-26-2013, 04:16
On one thread there are folks claiming that the 109 canon obscures the target and they cannot see what they are shooting at.
In this thread, we have folks calming they know that they are "filling" spitfires with cannon rounds.

Let's have some slightly more evidence-based discussions.

Recently I posted a video where I thought I had put many rounds into a 109, and I was disappointed that he was still flying easily.
However, another red pilot (Robo) reviewed that video and pointed out that my estimate of the rounds that hit was too optimistic.

So, when I read things like "I filled" a spitfire with Canon rounds, I am a little bit incredulous about any conclusions drawn fro that assertion.

Mattias
Feb-26-2013, 04:52
On one thread there are folks claiming that the 109 canon obscures the target and they cannot see what they are shooting at.
In this thread, we have folks calming they know that they are "filling" spitfires with cannon rounds.

Let's have some slightly more evidence-based discussions.

Recently I posted a video where I thought I had put many rounds into a 109, and I was disappointed that he was still flying easily.
However, another red pilot (Robo) reviewed that video and pointed out that my estimate of the rounds that hit was too optimistic.

So, when I read things like "I filled" a spitfire with Canon rounds, I am a little bit incredulous about any conclusions drawn fro that assertion.

:salute:

I think some of this issue/disagreement lays in the fact that online and offline experiences are hard to compare. Offline, the AI pilots have a more simplistic FM and sometimes seem unaffected by structural damage, rolling and turning as if nothing was wrong, while a human pilot taking the same damage has to struggle just to stay in the air.

Cheers/m

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-26-2013, 05:06
:salute:

I think some of this issue/disagreement lays in the fact that online and offline experiences are hard to compare. Offline, the AI pilots have a more simplistic FM and sometimes seem unaffected by structural damage, rolling and turning as if nothing was wrong, while a human pilot taking the same damage has to struggle just to stay in the air.

Cheers/m

Good point.

Little_D
Feb-26-2013, 06:13
On one thread there are folks claiming that the 109 canon obscures the target and they cannot see what they are shooting at.
In this thread, we have folks calming they know that they are "filling" spitfires with cannon rounds.

Let's have some slightly more evidence-based discussions.

Recently I posted a video where I thought I had put many rounds into a 109, and I was disappointed that he was still flying easily.
However, another red pilot (Robo) reviewed that video and pointed out that my estimate of the rounds that hit was too optimistic.

So, when I read things like "I filled" a spitfire with Canon rounds, I am a little bit incredulous about any conclusions drawn fro that assertion.

hi gents,

Attila is right in some cases. you can hit a spit with with a 1 or even 2 long (2 sec.) good burst of 20mm in lets say the right wing, see 3 big holes or more in the wing ( you can look good truh them) and the spit still can outturn or outclimb a 109, even when you shoot the wingtip off this spit in game can still out manover you, i know 109 with wingtip can fly too but not turn as the spit/hurri without wingtip. as he wrote the Hurrie DM is ok, i can rip wings off, set the hurri under fire, so i can see here burn etc. spit no way. I see mutch more hurris where the pilot have to fight with the plane after he gets good hits in one wing than spits. I dont know how post this it was on banana-forum and here too, that when you open some files in CoD there you can see the damaged points for the wings in CoD. Hurrie /109 i think about 60 points, Spit 100 points. And to the nice tool ATAG gives us to see what we make for damaged, its not perfect, you can read elivator and aileron disabled or riped off, and the plane red/blue still can turn/climb, because you only diabled one side and the tool dont show witch side you damaged, you can see it only under parts cut off, if you cut them off, but this nice tool can give you a little help to find out how good your burst was under the parameter: aim, lead, fireduration, THX again for this tool, helps a lot to find the perfect leed an flyingpath to target :-).

i think we all have to wait what a nice peace of work Team Fusion brings out over the years (i hope it will be years). I think this will bring some old know guys from 1946 back to CoD.

regards

Little_D

Osprey
Feb-26-2013, 06:27
If you hit the pilot...then it's enough! If not, most the time the Spit can fly back home!(extremly rarely that i cutted a wing, or stuff like that). :-)

Please fly the RAF aircraft in combat before you make these assumptions. Hit him in the radiator and you have the same problem - they can fly back home because they are directly over it, he wouldn't make it across the Channel either.

Only on Saturday night I failed to catch up a Bf109 I had height on and he had lost half of his starboard wing, I'm happy to wait for the DM fixes.

Osprey
Feb-26-2013, 06:36
Hi Philstyle, hi gents,

maby this is to offensive, but what is worng with the red side? when ever a blue say that something can be wrong its wining. But when red say something is wrong its an historical fact, even when blue brings up origional data from the manufactor (only blue planes), red say its not right. sorry but this are my experience from 10 years of reading lots of forums about IL-2 1946 and now CoD. this counts not for all redside pilots but for the most. And as you read his english is not so good and maby he only take the wrong words to describe the problem. same as my english sometimes i dont know i f a native english speaker get it rigth what i want to say or if i have say it right.

to the post from Attila, he is right in some cases. you can hit a spit with with a 1 or even 2 long good burst of 20mm in lets say the right wing, see 3 big holes or more in the wing, and the spit still can outturn or outclimb a 109, even when you shoot the wingtip off this spit in game can still out manover you, i know 109 with wingtip can fly too but not turn as the spit/hurri without wingtip. as he wrote the Hurrie DM is ok, i can rip wings off, set the hurri under fire, so i can see here burn etc. spit no way. I see mutch more hurris where the pilot have to fight with the plane after he gets good hits in one wing than spits. I dont know how post this it was on banana-forum and here too, that when you open some files in CoD there you can see the damaged points for the wings in CoD. Hurrie /109 i think about 60 points, Spit 100 points. And to the nice tool ATAG gives us to see what we make for damaged, its not perfect, you can read elivator and aileron disabled or riped off, and the plane red/blue still can turn/climb, because you only diabled one side and the tool dont show witch side you damaged, you can see it only under parts cut off, if you cut them off, but this nice tool can give you a little help to find out how good your burst was under the parameter aim, lead, fireduration.

regards

Little_D


I'm not offended Little_D but I don't believe any of it. The OP made some statements with absolutely no evidence to demonstrate the problem and the only RAF responses have been polite and informative. Are you sure you aren't wearing very very blue spectacles? :hypnotized:

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-26-2013, 07:14
Attila is right in some cases. you can hit a spit with with a 1 or even 2 long (2 sec.) good burst of 20mm in lets say the right wing, see 3 big holes or more in the wing ( you can look good truh them) and the spit still can outturn or outclimb a 109, even when you shoot the wingtip off this spit in game can still out manover you, i know 109 with wingtip can fly too but not turn as the spit/hurri without wingtip. as he wrote the Hurrie DM is ok, i can rip wings off, set the hurri under fire, so i can see here burn etc. spit no way. I see mutch more hurris where the pilot have to fight with the plane after he gets good hits in one wing than spits.

I respond because I was directly addressed (not becasue I want to fight)

Firstly, it's a good thing you deleted your first paragraph. There were sweeping assertions ("every time" this, and "every time" that) in there that are easily rebutted. I thought we were going to steer clear of that kid of argumentation, it belongs back at Banana, not here.


It seems to me that there are two, maybe three texture changes that the game uses to graphically represent damage tot he spitfire wing.
1. has a couple of bullet holes
2. has small see-through tears in the wing covering
3. shows large see-though holes and exposes the wing structures to view. (I will upload a screen shot of this damage decal later today)


When the spitfire is at the third damage decal it loses significant roll rate. I have never once been able to out turn an un-damaged 109 when my wing is holed like that. The spitfire loses some max speed, has induced roll, and loses roll capability in one direction more than the other when the wing is severely damaged. If a spitfire has that level of damage showing, and it has no effect on roll-rate then either (1) the game graphics have broken, or (2)the guy is cheating - I cannot see any other explanation for it.

I want to see the video of this spitfire with the large-wing damage modeled that can out-turn a 109 which is fly gin at full turn and speed. Let's see the video (or, even better let's have a copy of the .trk file!). If there some .trk files showing a heavily damaged-wing spitfire that can out-turn a undamaged 109 from the online/ multiplayer full-real servers (ATAG or ACG) then I will be surprised.

Mattias
Feb-26-2013, 07:14
:salute:

Just to get some balance I must admit my little 109 is often able to absorb a ridiculous amount of 0.303 and still taking me back to france. :D
As been mentioned many times, one bullet at the right place will end both the Spit and the 109, but miss the important parts and they are both able to fly on even with hundreds of machinegun hits/several cannon hits. I find this kind of realistic :thumbsup:

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-26-2013, 07:20
maby this is to offensive, but what is worng with the red side? when ever a blue say that something can be wrong its wining. But when red say something is wrong its an historical fact, even when blue brings up origional data from the manufactor (only blue planes), red say its not right. sorry but this are my experience from 10 years of reading lots of forums about IL-2 1946 and now CoD.


wrong.
I can find you some examples on this very rum where Blue pilots have brought evidence and red pilots have, after come clarification, said "yes" to it.


this counts not for all redside pilots but for the most
The "most"? How many red pilots are there? How many can you identify who fit into this category? Count them for me please.
You can't just drop a catch-all bomb like that. It's not fair, and it's not supported by any evidence.

I could just as easily say the follwing:

but what is wrong with the blue side ... sorry but this are my experience from 10 years of reading lots of forums about IL-2 1946 and now CoD...this counts not for all blueside pilots but for the most

How nonsensical is that statement?

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-26-2013, 07:25
:salute:

Just to get some balance I must admit my little 109 is often able to absorb a ridiculous amount of 0.303 and still taking me back to france. :D
As been mentioned many times, one bullet at the right place will end both the Spit and the 109, but miss the important parts and they are both able to fly on even with hundreds of machinegun hits/several cannon hits. I find this kind of realistic :thumbsup:

Thanks Matthias. :salute:
Hey sometimes I'm amazed that my beaten-up old spit can carry me home too. Sometimes it's just on a wing and a prayer.
But that's part of the fun isn't it? Desperately trying to hold on to a damaged machine and scurry away from the fight, hoping that your enemy doesn't see you limping away...

We've all seen these amazing photos from the war of heavily damaged aircraft making it home. And we've all seen these photos of aircraft which appear hardly damaged at all, lying on the sandy beaches of France and England.

We cannot ever really be sue in multi-player how many of our bullets hit the target, or exactly where they all landed. And we can't tell what extra effort the pilot of the damaged plane is making in order to keep her flying when others might have bailed out!

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-26-2013, 07:32
As for the wing-tip issue.... here's where I [[a red pilot! Oh my gosh!]] agrees with Little_D.

Chopping off the wingtip does increase roll rate in the game! I will admit this, as will every other spitfire pilot.If we spawn at Hawkinge some of the time our hangars will do this for us!
Super marine even added this to their aircraft deliberately later int he war.
However in-game, the aircraft will get some induced roll if one of the two wingtips is removed. The pilot can fight this roll however, and it does not appear to have a great impact on fly-ability.

However, here's is where I think the game's Spitfire damage model IS wrong. Shooting off the spitfire wingtip should NOT result in a nice clean, surgical cut at just the right point. 109 gunfire should not replicate the tooled machinery at the Castle Bromwich factory! It should result in a tangled mess at the wingtip, which slightly reduces the roll rate, not increases it. The rivets at the end should tear off under the force of the bullets and the wind acting on the damaged part.

Little_D
Feb-26-2013, 07:52
I'm not offended Little_D but I don't believe any of it. The OP made some statements with absolutely no evidence to demonstrate the problem and the only RAF responses have been polite and informative. Are you sure you aren't wearing very very blue spectacles? :hypnotized:

hi Osprey,

nice that you are not offended, i still take it out, not the room here for thinks like this and for the blue side i think it counts too not to all pilots as i wrote before.

In germany we say something like this "putting the cart before the horse" (hope its right only googletranclator). so maby we can look at the game/sim from this points no red/blue:


we all or at least the most from us whant a historical corect sim as close as possible, and this has count for 1946 and counts for CoD. on In both sims we have the same problems:

1. In real they had only ONE LIFE!!!
This means there where human and they will care about there lifes (maby not the Kamikaze-pilots :devilish:). So a) when they get killed its over, b) this means if they get damaged in fight that a figh is not possible, they would get out of this planes as fast and soon as possible and prey for a wingman, to fight next day again or only to survive. What we have on the server we fight most of the time till the end, shout fu.. take a smoke break and take a new plane.

So normaly how cares about right FM/DM? We? Wy? Because we all here are as we are :) and this brings us all together.

Somtimes i think not so mutch historical corectnes or a mix from historical corect and semihistorical would be better to get it historical. i mean and this are only my 2 cents:

FM: Take for each plane the original manufacture date from the country and nothing more, no other side testdata, no combatreports (for speed, dive, climb and roll). The goverments trust this data at this time even when the data where calculated with a margin from 5%-8% . So lets us trust them too. ( Even when we know today they have a higher margin ). with this no side can say something. rest is pilot :)

DM, to fit more to point 1:
Mix of old 1946 and Cod, so we all get more damaged in an 2 sec. burst and with this we are forced faster to leave the plane and not fight every fight till the end, so maby not so an historical corect DM, but it comes closer to the behavior the real pilots had.

gamplay to fit more to point 1:

Fly like they dit in WW2, fly historical tactics, start to care about your pilots life, stop acardeflying, stop vulching ( nobody from you vulchers had survived his first airfield-atackmission :D) then we maby get close to history.

regards

Little_D

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-26-2013, 08:14
Servus Little_D, now we are making progress!



FM: Take for each plane the original manufacture date from the country and nothing more, no other side testdata, no combatreports (for speed, dive, climb and roll). The goverments trust this data at this time even when the data where calculated with a margin from 5%-8% . So lets us trust them too. ( Even when we know today they have a higher margin ). with this no side can say something. rest is pilot :)
Einverstanden!
This is a reasonable suggestion. However, we have to be careful, because people will still post a video from a pilot saying X, or Y! it's unavoidable...


DM, to fit more to point 1:
Mix of old 1946 and Cod, so we all get more damaged in an 2 sec. burst and with this we are forced faster to leave the plane and not fight every fight till the end, so maby not so an historical corect DM, but it comes closer to the behavior the real pilots had.
Einverstanden!
Provided that the 2 second bust is actually hitting! Sometime I fire a 2 second burst, but only 0.5 seconds hits the target ;)



gamplay to fit more to point 1:
Fly like they dit in WW2, fly historical tactics, start to care about your pilots life, stop acardeflying, stop vulching ( nobody from you vulchers had survived his first airfield-atackmission :D) then we maby get close to history.
Einverstanden!
Although I think vulching is OK. We just need better low-level machine guns from the ground to make it harder to vulch.
I would love more historical missions. And higher altitude combat!

Osprey
Feb-26-2013, 08:28
FM: Take for each plane the original manufacture date from the country and nothing more, no other side testdata, no combatreports (for speed, dive, climb and roll). The goverments trust this data at this time even when the data where calculated with a margin from 5%-8% . So lets us trust them too. ( Even when we know today they have a higher margin ). with this no side can say something. rest is pilot :)


I'm pretty sure this is what has happened with the patch, so if you find things harder then let's not have any complaints about it ;-) You'll just have to change your style so it's like the 1 life you are talking about :thumbsup:

Little_D
Feb-26-2013, 09:19
I'm pretty sure this is what has happened with the patch, so if you find things harder then let's not have any complaints about it ;-) You'll just have to change your style so it's like the 1 life you are talking about :thumbsup:

Hi osprey,

i hope it too and i hope Team Fusion show us in the readme witch data they use fore each plane, not to make a thread to discus, only for the pilot to know what specifications the plane has he fly with. My flyingstyl was in 1946 like this (historical, historical takticts, everytime 100% fuel), it was in the begining of Cod so, it change since the last patches, but this is an other story. I try to go back to my flyingstyl i had, hope the patch make it easyer to go back to the old styl (nothing about FM/DM in here), i think most sim-pilots will know what i mean.

to the pilotreports like: i out climbed/dive a 109 / i outturnd a spit. Who i am that i call a pilot who fight about his life call a layer. If he was able to do it, than it was in this special situation possible. we know nothing about position to each other, speed, energie, pilotknowleg etc. It only shows that it is possible in some special situations, and the enemy cant talk about this situation because he dont survived? but has nothing to do when makeing FM.

Hi Philstyle,

to the 2 sec burst: i take this time, because most combatreports i have read from both sides describe it like this: i aimed for the engin gave a short 2 second burst, hit the engin, engin on fire strong black smoke and fire visible enemy bails, plane goes down. or: i aimd for the wing gave him a 2 sec. burst into the left wing saw the hits and fire from the explopsion from the ammunition, wing brake off, pilot bail. or i aimed for an 2 second burst on the cockpit hit the engin big smoke and no reaction from the pilot, plane goes in a left spiral down. I dont know how many .303 or 20mm round hits, but this are the results the pilots report. Sometimes i read to that they need a longer burst, but this 2 second you can find mutch more often than longer bursts when it goes on fighters. you can find combatreports from 2 sec. burst against bombers and they go down too. And i think the most importen point is that i think 80% of the shot down pilots dont know that they had an enemy on 6, even in turn fights, so no evadeding and than the pilotreports with 2 sec. burst starts to make sence and that you get in an 2 sec. burst enough damaged to the enemy that the pilot if he survive the atack will bail. if the enemy knows you are there and evades your atack and with this your leed/aim is not good enough you need more sec. burst or even 2 or 3 2 sec. burst to get the same results, this you can read in combatreports too.

Sorry forgot to says this are 3 examples from british pilot combatreports i have read, that fight in BOB.


regards

Little_D

DennydD
Feb-26-2013, 09:28
@Attila: Is it possible to change the name of this thread to "The DM for Spits!"? It is kinda misleading now because this is about DM's.

Moderator edit: Good point, DennydD. Changed accordingly -- hope you don't mind, Attila.

- Snapper

From my experience while flying Spitfires they are pretty vulnerable to gun/cannonfire. I fly them on and offline full real and I agree with vranacs post.
The radiator thing is also true for both sides but it is obviously more a "blue" problem because they have to cross the channel and get back with their planes. I think this is the reason why you read more complaints about the 109 radiator. Flying online a for the "red" side I usually manage to put my plane down on one of the airfields gliding or coughing while the "blues" mostly fall into the channel. Thats also historical IIRC.

From all the Spitfires I shot down while being "blue" hardly one "desintegrated". (That is also true for 109's!) I think that is what Attila was refering to. It seems that fatal structural damage is hardly seen with fighter planes. I *never* lost a wing to gunfire, neither in a Spitfire nor in a 109. Funny enough I frequently cut bomber wings. I recall a thread on banana forum about this phenomenon.

Technical it is easy: There is a lot of stress on the wing structure, especially in turns, and a shell hitting a strut in this situation will most likely take of your wing. It is not important if this is a .303 or a 20mm but a 20mm will do the job "more likely" due to the higher impact energy.

If I put the PK aside *all* fighters are pretty durable under fire and I only refere to main structural damage like wing or fuselage breakdown.

What's amazing is this old "blue" vs. "red" mentality that always boils up in such discussions...

Attila
Feb-26-2013, 10:01
@Attila: Is it possible to change the name of this thread to "The DM for Spits!"? It is kinda misleading now because this is about DM's.

Moderator edit: Good point, DennydD. Changed accordingly -- hope you don't mind, Attila.

- Snapper



I've tried it many times yesterday without any success!:grrr:
Thx for doing it for me Snapper!:D

ATAG_Snapper
Feb-26-2013, 10:12
No prob. For some reason the OP can't change or correct the title of his own thread. Weird. :goofy

Good discussion, BTW. :thumbsup:

Attila
Feb-26-2013, 10:22
From all the Spitfires I shot down while being "blue" hardly one "desintegrated". (That is also true for 109's!) I think that is what Attila was refering to. It seems that fatal structural damage is hardly seen with fighter planes. I *never* lost a wing to gunfire, neither in a Spitfire nor in a 109. Funny enough I frequently cut bomber wings. I recall a thread on banana forum about this phenomenon.

Technical it is easy: There is a lot of stress on the wing structure, especially in turns, and a shell hitting a strut in this situation will most likely take of your wing. It is not important if this is a .303 or a 20mm but a 20mm will do the job "more likely" due to the higher impact energy.

If I put the PK aside *all* fighters are pretty durable under fire and I only refere to main structural damage like wing or fuselage .

I can say, you hit the nail on the head! That is the message that i tried to write! After more then 600 h of onlinegaming (most the time on ATAG), I managed it only 2 times to cut a wing on a Spit! IMO the high G-forces with, damaged structures, are ignored at the moment (with this official patch)!

But we have read it, help is on the way and that's fantastic!:)

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-26-2013, 10:49
I can say, you hit the nail on the head! That is the message that i tried to write! After more then 600 h of onlinegaming (most the time on ATAG), I managed it only 2 times to cut a wing on a Spit! IMO the high G-forces with, damaged structures, are ignored at the moment (with this official patch)!

But we have read it, help is on the way and that's fantastic!:)

Well if it's any consolation, I don't ever recall having cut the wing off a 109 with my spitfire guns either.
The only times I have ever seen a 109 wing fall off, it was because I collided my 109 into something, or if I collided my spitfire into a 109.
Same goes for the Spitfire - I have only ever lost the wing (not just the wingtip - but the whole wing) when it has been chopped off in an air-to-air collision.

Ohms
Feb-26-2013, 10:51
It does happen but not as much as it probably should. Watch any of MK MR.X videos he does it all the time.

Salute :)

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-26-2013, 11:09
to the 2 sec burst: i take this time, because most combatreports i have read from both sides describe it like this: i aimed for the engin gave a short 2 second burst, hit the engin, engin on fire strong black smoke and fire visible enemy bails, plane goes down. or: i aimd for the wing gave him a 2 sec. burst into the left wing saw the hits and fire from the explopsion from the ammunition, wing brake off, pilot bail. or i aimed for an 2 second burst on the cockpit hit the engin big smoke and no reaction from the pilot, plane goes in a left spiral down. I dont know how many .303 or 20mm round hits, but this are the results the pilots report. Sometimes i read to that they need a longer burst, but this 2 second you can find mutch more often than longer bursts when it goes on fighters. you can find combatreports from 2 sec. burst against bombers and they go down too. And i think the most importen point is that i think 80% of the shot down pilots dont know that they had an enemy on 6, even in turn fights, so no evadeding and than the pilotreports with 2 sec. burst starts to make sence and that you get in an 2 sec. burst enough damaged to the enemy that the pilot if he survive the atack will bail. if the enemy knows you are there and evades your atack and with this your leed/aim is not good enough you need more sec. burst or even 2 or 3 2 sec. burst to get the same results, this you can read in combatreports too.

Genau!
I agree that a 2 or 3 second burst from 8 x 0.303 brownings should be enough to destroy a fighter.
I just want to make sure that it really is 2 seconds of ammo - and that they all hit the target
2 seconds continuous fire from a spitfire is 320 rounds (8 guns x20rps x2 second)! And from a 109E1 that's ~140 rounds (4 guns x 17rps x 2 seconds)!

If we're going to say that 320 rounds is enough, then the 109e1 will be under-powered, the E1 will need a 4.5 second burst to do the same damage...
If we say that 140 rounds is enough, then the spitfire will only need 0.75 seconds to do the same damage..
The armament difference between the Spitfire and the 109e1 is historically lopsided. The spitfire unequivocally out-guns the 109e1.
This is why the Luftwaffe introduced the Canon, so that the 109 hitting power was similar (maybe even greater) than the Spitfire.

Little_D
Feb-26-2013, 11:51
It does happen but not as much as it probably should. Watch any of MK MR.X videos he does it all the time.

Salute :)

Hi Omie 412:

i and other pilots can do it to online, but its more luck than wanted and happens mutch to less, could record it without getting kicked all the time you would see videos from this too, where spits loose a wing or even the compled back of the plane, many records needed to put it together. Mr. X is still a very good pilot. yes it is possible and it is in the game, in offline mod i cant tell you how often i set a spit on fire so that you can see it clearly same counts for spitwing rip off and 109 DM in a good placed 2 sec burst. so maby its a littlebit the DM and maby more the netcode/ping or we realy have 2 different DM`s, because than the the DM online is different to the DM offline. but when it is the netcode or the ping than we need more damaged from the wepons or more vulnerable planes, to get the same efects as offline.

Yes offline is AI, but no problem with this. its about DM and what we can read in combareports from both sides. and i must say offline it comes very close to it for both sides. When i read this combatreports it sounds more after wanted kills, like
be in the right position, in the right distance (convergence), at the right time and the right place, 2 sec. burst enemy finished + the the way how they describe how they come in this perfect position and where knowing: now i have to fire and enemey is 100% gone. And when a pilot from WW2 say he know when he was in this perfect shot situation and know when he has to open fire and fired it will be a 100% kill ( in meaning enemy has to mutch damaged and bail as an example) and it was one, than it was one. I think we all can come to gether when i say only the pilot that had luck and mutch experience survived the war and can tell there story. When i now take this down to CoD. i would say we all have the same knowleg, maby more, so we know when we are in the perfect shooting range and fire at the right time the enemy should be finished as in offline DM / combatreports, because we have the luck we can learn from our errors about flying and aiming, they get killed, no refly.

i dont whant a 100% hit/kill thing, i would like the offline DM for online. becasue as i said before offline it comes very close to the combatreports.

regards

Little_D

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-26-2013, 11:55
i dont whant a 100% hit/kill thing, i would like the offline DM for online. becasue as i said before offline it comes very close to the combatreports.


The problem is, Little_D, you've already said above that Combat Reports should Not be used for FM related questions. Why can we use them for DM related matters? Are they unreliable for FM, but reliable for DM?

Little_D
Feb-26-2013, 12:15
Genau!
I agree that a 2 or 3 second burst from 8 x 0.303 brownings should be enough to destroy a fighter.
I just want to make sure that it really is 2 seconds of ammo - and that they all hit the target
2 seconds continuous fire from a spitfire is 320 rounds (8 guns x20rps x2 second)! And from a 109E1 that's ~140 rounds (4 guns x 17rps x 2 seconds)!

If we're going to say that 320 rounds is enough, then the 109e1 will be under-powered, the E1 will need a 4.5 second burst to do the same damage...
If we say that 140 rounds is enough, then the spitfire will only need 0.75 seconds to do the same damage..
The armament difference between the Spitfire and the 109e1 is historically lopsided. The spitfire unequivocally out-guns the 109e1.
This is why the Luftwaffe introduced the Canon, so that the 109 hitting power was similar (maybe even greater) than the Spitfire.

Hi 92 Sqn. Philstyle,

i dont know this and i dont know how many bullets will hit in a 2 sec. burst, this dont stand there there all only talking about a 2-3 sec. burst on the enemy and than the result they saw. but it must be enough to write it like they dit. (I dont hink they count the bullets in fight :-)) mabe this make it more clear what i mean, from one britisch pilot (Hurri-pilot) in BoB: " I saw a 109 hunting a spit in my direction on my low 11 a clock, i rolled over dived in and as the spitfire pilot makes a leftclimb turn i get the enemy 109 perfect into leed under my nose for an shot aimed over engin and cockpit gave here a 2 sec. burst while I continued pulled on the stick, after i lower the pressure on the stick, i saw fire and big black smoke coming out of the engin and the 109 rolled over and dived in an uncontrolled spiral down, impaced confirmed. and there are so many others with different angles, leed, situations etc. that wrote like this on both sides. and when they ned a longer burst or more than one burst than they wrot it down too. but i would say its more 65%/75% with 2 sec burst and 35%/25% more burst ore longer burst needed, depents on experience.

so howmany bullets shoot 8x .303 in 2 second and how many mabe hit when we are in perfect shot position, from offline DM / combatreports i would say enough and we should see it more often as we see on both sides now on the server.


regards

Little_D

9./JG52 Hans Gruber
Feb-26-2013, 12:20
I have 1200 hours in this sim, 99% of that in multiplayer with probably a couple thousand air-to-air kills. I say that not to boast but just a statement that maybe I might know what I am talking about. Or not. Anyway, in my experience the Spitfire is by far the toughest aircraft to destroy in the game including all of the bombers. The Hurricane and 109 are quite flammable yet I could count on one hand the number of Spitfires I have seen on fire. Knocking wings off a Blenheim & Hurricane is far easier than doing the same to a Spitfire. Remember in 1946 how much your wing dropped when it was damaged, yet it's pretty common in CloD to see a Spit making high G turns with holes in the wing I could put a foot through. The best and only reliable way to down a Spitfire is with a pilot kill, something that I believe is a little too easy to do in all planes. I believe the damage models are screwed across the board and very much look forward to TF looking into them. Pilot kills happen way too often, fighters can take way too much damage and stay airborne, and bombers are too easy to bring down. All that being said I would generally agree with the OP that of all the messed up DM's the Spits benefit the most. That doesn't make you any less of a pilot for flying a Spitfire so don't take that as a personal attack.

SlipBall
Feb-26-2013, 12:23
Genau!
I agree that a 2 or 3 second burst from 8 x 0.303 brownings should be enough to destroy a fighter.
I just want to make sure that it really is 2 seconds of ammo - and that they all hit the target
2 seconds continuous fire from a spitfire is 320 rounds (8 guns x20rps x2 second)! And from a 109E1 that's ~140 rounds (4 guns x 17rps x 2 seconds)!

If we're going to say that 320 rounds is enough, then the 109e1 will be under-powered, the E1 will need a 4.5 second burst to do the same damage...
If we say that 140 rounds is enough, then the spitfire will only need 0.75 seconds to do the same damage..
The armament difference between the Spitfire and the 109e1 is historically lopsided. The spitfire unequivocally out-guns the 109e1.
This is why the Luftwaffe introduced the Canon, so that the 109 hitting power was similar (maybe even greater) than the Spitfire.

It is not possible for all the rounds to hit the target, unless I misunderstood what you are saying.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-26-2013, 12:33
. Remember in 1946 how much your wing dropped when it was damaged, yet it's pretty common in CloD to see a Spit making high G turns with holes in the wing I could put a foot through.

I don't care what happened in IL2-1946. That's irrelevant. However I agree that a badly damaged wing whether on a spitfire or not, should generate less lift and not the same.
As it stands the main impact we get is an induced roll, but it is disproportionate to the visuals/ graphics showing the damage. A badly damaged wing should render the aircraft no-longer combat worthy - but flyable. Same for the 109.. or the G-50.. or the Hurricane...

Although, that said, I've got some great videos of 109s turning with broken wings and with entire aileron's missing! this morning we had a 109 at Hawkinge out-turning and out-running 3 of us with one of his wheels down!

So, I would like to see this thread renamed to "all aircraft DM" rather than just singling out the spitfires.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-26-2013, 12:36
It is not possible for all the rounds to hit the target, unless I misunderstood what you are saying.

What I'm sayign is this.

Firstly - if we base the damage model on "2 second burst" then;

1. Pilots would have to realise that just because they thought they had squirted 2 seconds' worth of bullets into an aircraft, it does not mean they really did do that!

2. 2 seconds of ammo from a spitfire, and 2 seconds of ammo from a 109e1 is NOT the same thing. 2 seconds of fire from a spitfire is more than twice as powerful as two seconds from the 109e1.

Little_D
Feb-26-2013, 12:37
The problem is, Little_D, you've already said above that Combat Reports should Not be used for FM related questions. Why can we use them for DM related matters? Are they unreliable for FM, but reliable for DM?

Hi again :-)


1: as i wrote before in special situation i trust them, when they say there where able to out-dive, out-roll, out-climb, out- turn the enemy than they did, nothing about this.
but for an agreement about FM so we all can live with (speed, climb, roll, dive, turn etc. we should use hard facts, and only this, as i post before), where you agree.
and when it fit to one thing it must be not automaticly count for an other thing

2. for DM and that we get lost of the problem fighting to the end and take a smoking break and a new plane and to get it more historical to reference of the the combatreports i postet. i would say, yes use combatreports because on what you whant to base it? can you calculate the stress the wing take in a turn and how many bullets hit and what for damaged they do in this spot under this speed and stress etc. to get this damaged out. i cant. i mean they saw what happens when the hit with an 2 sec. burst. so i belive them same counts for nr. 1

what you see when you hit at convergens with an 2 sec burst on an enemy plane in a offline mission? i see damaged that come close to the pilotreports. not every time, you realy have to make a perfect shot and when it is not perfect it still make the AI bail as we should do too, after we get so mutch damaged, but we fight till the end.

to your last post 92 Sqn. Philstyle: your right about the E-1 but what is with the 20mm E4 miningshells?

regards

Little_D

P.S.: this is offtopic: why i allway have to log in agin when i write a post? ok i know i am slow when i have to write in english, is there something i can do?

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-26-2013, 12:41
P.S.: this is offtopic: why i allway have to log in agin when i write a post? ok i know i am slow when i have to write in english, is there something i can do?

Hmm, this does not happen for me.. maybe a browser timeout?

Sorry I can't help ;(

SlipBall
Feb-26-2013, 12:42
What I'm sayign is this.

Firstly - if we base the damage model on "2 second burst" then;

1. Pilots would have to realise that just because they thought they had squirted 2 seconds' worth of bullets into an aircraft, it does not mean they really did do that!

2. 2 seconds of ammo from a spitfire, and 2 seconds of ammo from a 109e1 is NOT the same thing. 2 seconds of fire from a spitfire is more than twice as powerful as two seconds from the 109e1.


The post that I quoted you had "All" hit the target, what if they don't?

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-26-2013, 12:47
The post that I quoted you had "All" hit the target, what if they don't?

Right, if they don't hit then they don't cause damage. Naturlich.
Which is where my first point comes in about pilots over-estimating their accuracy (something I've done)

The rule "a two second burst kills a plane" only applies if ALL bullets hit the target. If they miss the target then... bah... meh..... we are back to square one - which is a structure based model - whcih would be my preference anyways - I'm just testing Little_D's suggestion about using a burst-based model.

SlipBall
Feb-26-2013, 12:55
Well the game might be unrealistic with the guns, the barrels would warp and melt I think in RL

Little_D
Feb-26-2013, 13:03
Right, if they don't hit then they don't cause damage. Naturlich.
Which is where my first point comes in about pilots over-estimating their accuracy (something I've done)

The rule "a two second burst kills a plane" only applies if ALL bullets hit the target. If they miss the target then... bah... meh..... we are back to square one - which is a structure based model - whcih would be my preference anyways - I'm just testing Little_D's suggestion about using a burst-based model.

Hi gents they never write about all bullets hit the write only about 2 or 2 - 3 sec burst and the result they saw, the dont hit with all bullets but make damgaded enoth to bring the plane down.

regards

Little_D

SlipBall
Feb-26-2013, 13:24
A person firing a 2 second burst at a wing's trailing edge may only have a few hits...like shooting at a playing card on its edge

Attila
Feb-26-2013, 13:37
Hi gents they never write about all bullets hit the write only about 2 or 2 - 3 sec burst and the result they saw, the dont hit with all bullets but make damgaded enoth to bring the plane down.

regards

Little_D

By the way, i have never seen any plane explode after a long burst in this game! Fact is, that this happend many times in dogfights! Even in the early days of the war.:stunned:

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-26-2013, 13:51
By the way, i have never seen any plane explode after a long burst in this game! Fact is, that this happend many times in dogfights! Even in the early days of the war.:stunned:

I've also never seen a fuel tank explode. on any aircraft - red or blue.

That would be amazing!

SlipBall
Feb-26-2013, 14:01
I've also never seen a fuel tank explode. on any aircraft - red or blue.

That would be amazing!


I did see this last week one of my gunner's in a He111 blew up a Rotol, in old game, it was so cool that I was just stairng I waited too long on the screen shot, but I did get one.

Little_D
Feb-26-2013, 14:11
A person firing a 2 second burst at a wing's trailing edge may only have a few hits...like shooting at a playing card on its edge

Hi SlipBall,

your right, but from the point of view about DM-model offline and combatreport this is/was enough damaged in an well aimed burst of 2 sec. with wings rip off, pilotkills, engin on fire, pilot bail etc. to bring them down, even when only a few bullets hit.

regards

Little_D

SlipBall
Feb-26-2013, 14:18
Hi SlipBall,

your right, but from the point of view about DM-model offline and combatreport this is/was enough damaged in an well aimed burst of 2 sec. with wings rip off, pilotkills, engin on fire, pilot bail etc. to bring them down, even when only a few bullets hit.

regards

Little_D

I would not expect two separate DMs are now, but the team will be able to answer that question in time...I know the DM is not very good or correct

ATAG_JTDawg
Feb-26-2013, 15:21
By the way, i have never seen any plane explode after a long burst in this game! Fact is, that this happend many times in dogfights! Even in the early days of the war.:stunned:

ok after 1300 hours an 1,000s of kills , i have shot off 3 wings . ( what i call the perfect shot) i have totally left 2- 109s in a complete explosion (parts flames an debris ) thats the tough one , but far to many times i put dead on shot into the cock pit (i see the glass blow off ) with little or no results . an as many as 5 spits an hurri's pounding the hell out of a 109 with many good hits at multiple angles all at same time an the 109 still fights , even after a wing or body fire. rads venting that same 109 starts to get the upper hand after anouther 10 mins .( seen this 1 many times) still can climb an with no e,. end up getting 1 or 2 of us ? Now on the other hand i have had my wing blown of well over 50 times at differant lengths (so the wings not coming off don't hold mutch water with me ) , i have been totally blown into a million pieces 10 to 12 times . an have been burned alive in cockpit 3-4 times ( the screen goes slowly black with no red ) an when i get hole in a wing i know the end is near , as turning is much slower an takes all you can do to keep in the fight, so saying holes in wings don't matter , Don't understand that 1 either, so i see it as a thing on both sides. But i still see it as the perfect , that one in a million shot for the allied , an on the blue side , which occures much more often, but still works out to be the perfect shot . would i like to see more planes explode yes. but the way it is now. i can do the yippy dance as they are rare as hens teeth :recon:

Broodwich
Feb-26-2013, 16:30
Keep in mind, the caliber of guns used in these planes are people killers. One round to center mass is good enough for at least an incapacitation. When these guns are shooting roughly 20 rounds per second, with multiple guns per plane, any hit on the pilot would likely prove fatal, or at least extremely debilitating. I don't know about CloD, but in 1946 you need a direct headshot to kill a pilot/crewmember. As far as I've noticed in this game, its fairly common to spray the open rear gunner of say a 110 and have no effect. This is not to say 2 second burst or whatever, but hosing 8 guns at that rate of fire through a man wouldnt leave much left.

Ive mentioned it earlier as well, but planes dont light on fire that often, given how many incendiary rounds you put through them. Lots burned on planes besides just fuel

Kling
Feb-26-2013, 16:35
ok after 1300 hours an 1,000s of kills , i have shot off 3 wings . ( what i call the perfect shot) i have totally left 2- 109s in a complete explosion (parts flames an debris ) thats the tough one , but far to many times i put dead on shot into the cock pit (i see the glass blow off ) with little or no results . an as many as 5 spits an hurri's pounding the hell out of a 109 with many good hits at multiple angles all at same time an the 109 still fights , even after a wing or body fire. rads venting that same 109 starts to get the upper hand after anouther 10 mins .( seen this 1 many times) still can climb an with no e,. end up getting 1 or 2 of us ? Now on the other hand i have had my wing blown of well over 50 times at differant lengths (so the wings not coming off don't hold mutch water with me ) , i have been totally blown into a million pieces 10 to 12 times . an have been burned alive in cockpit 3-4 times ( the screen goes slowly black with no red ) an when i get hole in a wing i know the end is near , as turning is much slower an takes all you can do to keep in the fight, so saying holes in wings don't matter , Don't understand that 1 either, so i see it as a thing on both sides. But i still see it as the perfect , that one in a million shot for the allied , an on the blue side , which occures much more often, but still works out to be the perfect shot . would i like to see more planes explode yes. but the way it is now. i can do the yippy dance as they are rare as hens teeth :recon:

You are aware that with rads venting, the engine will quit within 2 mins right??

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Feb-26-2013, 17:02
Salute

As has been mentioned revising the damage and weapons modelling is a priority for release 2.

We have already confirmed many anomalies in the damage and weapons files, which we intend to address.

Our changes will be on the basis of research and known data, not anecdote. We can't say any more at this stage.

ATAG_JTDawg
Feb-26-2013, 17:48
You are aware that with rads venting, the engine will quit within 2 mins right??

not all the time, is what i'm saying, i'll go with Buzzsaw an say it is a anomalies , i really wish we would have kept the damage report from the 109 a few nights ago, then you could have seen atleast 3 cockpit hits engine oil in every fashion, rads an water lines broke etc etc including a fire , my list on 109 was 6 inches long or more , there was 4 of us pounding this 109 , the others in group also had long damage lists on the 109 too ! which i remember saying after he was on fire etc let him go , he is done , not the case he turned climbed an engaged, so not 2 mins , an after getting me in motor putting hits on anouther he disengaged an flew home , so anomalies, there is no constant , that is what i'm saying :)

ATAG_Snapper
Feb-26-2013, 18:02
With the upcoming release of the TF patch we'll see if some of these anomalies don't suddenly clear up. :D

Stigler
Feb-26-2013, 20:21
Keep in mind, the caliber of guns used in these planes are people killers. One round to center mass is good enough for at least an incapacitation. When these guns are shooting roughly 20 rounds per second, with multiple guns per plane, any hit on the pilot would likely prove fatal, or at least extremely debilitating. I don't know about CloD, but in 1946 you need a direct headshot to kill a pilot/crewmember. As far as I've noticed in this game, its fairly common to spray the open rear gunner of say a 110 and have no effect. This is not to say 2 second burst or whatever, but hosing 8 guns at that rate of fire through a man wouldnt leave much left.

Ive mentioned it earlier as well, but planes dont light on fire that often, given how many incendiary rounds you put through them. Lots burned on planes besides just fuel

Not arguing :)


I do not agree on the gunner on the bf-110, I lost 90% of mine in the first burst from rear aspect. Or do I have bad karma in game as well as in rl, lol. Rear gunners died a lot. Ju-88 rear firing gunner died a lot.

SlipBall
Feb-27-2013, 04:52
Salute

As has been mentioned revising the damage and weapons modelling is a priority for release 2.

We have already confirmed many anomalies in the damage and weapons files, which we intend to address.

Our changes will be on the basis of research and known data, not anecdote. We can't say any more at this stage.


If done to historical accuracy fire rate would be great to have in game. Gunners and pilots alike I'm sure were given training on the possible damage to their guns from over firing and generating heat. I bet they were very cautious to follow the guide lines or risk loosing the gun to failure or barrel warpage. So then what were the instruction's, and what were the penalties. I can't find very much on the web about this.

Osprey
Feb-27-2013, 12:54
.......with little or no results . an as many as 5 spits an hurri's pounding the hell out of a 109 with many good hits at multiple angles all at same time an the 109 still fights , even after a wing or body fire. rads venting that same 109 starts to get the upper hand after anouther 10 mins .( seen this 1 many times) still can climb an with no e,. end up getting 1 or 2 of us ?


Do you have any video's of this JT? If this is true I would say this person is cheating, or you are missing. There's no way a 109 would last more than a minute if you hit him hard in the rads.

This is hitting on ATAG on Monday night (and me laughing and enjoying his death). Took me a squirt to get him but I decided to just blow some more ammo into him for the hell of it. I used perhaps 7 seconds worth?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ydpti-leIMg

(I didn't name the video btw)



not all the time, is what i'm saying, i'll go with Buzzsaw an say it is a anomalies , i really wish we would have kept the damage report from the 109 a few nights ago, then you could have seen atleast 3 cockpit hits engine oil in every fashion, rads an water lines broke etc etc including a fire , my list on 109 was 6 inches long or more , there was 4 of us pounding this 109 , the others in group also had long damage lists on the 109 too ! which i remember saying after he was on fire etc let him go , he is done , not the case he turned climbed an engaged, so not 2 mins , an after getting me in motor putting hits on anouther he disengaged an flew home , so anomalies, there is no constant , that is what i'm saying :)

With an oil leak he can fight on for a fair while. Rad leaks look different as per in the video above. A fire varies, you can have a wingtip on fire. If you hit him hard in the rad (like above) and he fought on then he was probably cheating.

SlipBall
Feb-27-2013, 13:07
Hi gents they never write about all bullets hit the write only about 2 or 2 - 3 sec burst and the result they saw, the dont hit with all bullets but make damgaded enoth to bring the plane down.

regards

Little_D


Hi Little_D

I'm thinking that the reason for so many 2-3 second burst reports, was that might have been the recommended duration to prevent gun damage from heat. So I think that should be researched and perhaps added to the DM, along with an review of a seemingly in error aircraft DM we have now.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-27-2013, 14:05
Hi Little_D

I'm thinking that the reason for so many 2-3 second burst reports, was that might have been the recommended duration to prevent gun damage from heat. So I think that should be researched and perhaps added to the DM, along with an review of a seemingly in error aircraft DM we have now.

Read this page, down near the bottom.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

There are many combat reports. Do a search for "second", and read what you find.
There are many cases of four and five second bursts.

In most cases the effective 2 second bursts are at 50 to 100 yards!

And the pilots are talking about how long they held down the trigger for! Not how many of their bullets hit the target!

Once again, I fear I'm hearing some bold assertions in this thread that don't match up squarely with the published information....

SlipBall
Feb-27-2013, 14:20
Read this page, down near the bottom.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

There are many combat reports. Do a search for "second", and read what you find.
There are many cases of four and five second bursts.

In most cases the effective 2 second bursts are at 50 to 100 yards!

And the pilots are talking about how long they held down the trigger for! Not how many of their bullets hit the target!

Once again, I fear I'm hearing some bold assertions in this thread that don't match up squarely with the published information....


So then, was there a recommendation on firing, as to not damage the guns?

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-27-2013, 14:23
Now, if we're going to take Little_D's advice and use combat reports to determine the DM (which I do not necessarily think is a good idea) we would have to apply it fairly to both sides.

So, how do the 109 boys feel abuot these combat report notes:

Oberleutnant Gerhard Schöpfel, Gruppenkommandeur of III./JG 26
Also I felt that the Messerschmitt was not so strong as the British fighters and could not take so much punishment.

Oberleutnant Jochen Schypek, 5/JG 54, on the 109's vulnerable radiator
The 'Indian' was right on my tail in my steep dive and opened fire. I could see bullets hitting my wings and, from the white trails on both sides, I knew he had hit my radiator... I did not have any chance of getting home and that he did not insist he complete his kill...

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-27-2013, 14:26
So then, was there a recommendation on firing, as to not damage the guns?

It does not seem like it to me from simply reading the CRs.
It seems like a 6 second burst was repeated quite often (reading the reports - the problem is, can we trust a combat report?).

Just to be clear, my point here is not to challenge the idea that there was a recommended burst time, but rather to challenge the idea that 2-3 second bursts were consistently enough to cause total failure of an enemy aircraft. Other factors come into play - distance to target, and number of hits being the most obvious.

SlipBall
Feb-27-2013, 14:34
It does not seem like it to me from simply reading the CRs.
It seems like a 6 second burst was repeated quite often (reading the reports - the problem is, can we trust a combat report?).

Just to be clear, my point here is not to challenge the idea that there was a comprehended burst time, but rather to challenge the idea that 2-3 second bursts were consistently enough to cause total failure of an enemy aircraft. Other factors come into play - distance to target, and number of hits being the most obvious.


Absolutely, I've fired 2-3 seconds with a 2% hits and I've fired and had 65% hits...so much comes into play for sure. I'm sure that gunners were advised on over heating, but they probably had replacement barrels on hand. Fighters & nose gunners may of had sufficient air cooling by their nature

Osprey
Feb-27-2013, 15:49
I don't think you'd overheat a barrel in 15 seconds of firing. You may melt the firing pin from prolonged use, but tbh I've never ever read of such a problem or seen a recommendation. Perhaps a gun expert, or an American, can tell us (that's a joke)

SlipBall
Feb-27-2013, 16:24
I don't think you'd overheat a barrel in 15 seconds of firing. You may melt the firing pin from prolonged use, but tbh I've never ever read of such a problem or seen a recommendation. Perhaps a gun expert, or an American, can tell us (that's a joke)

You are probably right, I do remember an interview on TV with a gunner who was warned by the pilot to watch the heat. I found this on a Browning site:

"The Colt MG 40. Flexible machine guns used a dual handled spade grip for better control when tracking fast moving targets. The aircraft guns were lightened considerably, and generally had a very high rate of fire, often nearly twice that of its ground counterpart. Because the barrel was invariably operating is a slip stream that could reach 300 MPH or more in the WW2 fighters, it did not need the heavy barrel to dissipate heat as with the ground MGs . The aircraft MGs are regarded by many collectors as the cream of the crop in air-cooled Browning machine guns. Note that an improved bottom plate supports the side plates for the entire length of the bottom plate."

Little_D
Feb-28-2013, 09:52
HI Sqn. Philstyle,

i surrender, it makes no sence, i was warned that it will make no sence to write all this, from red and blue guys i know, but i dont listened. sorry but i have to say they are rigth.
So this will be my last answer and post about FM/DM questions, considerations, etec and in future i only will post if i have questions to gameplay and ingamesettings.

even when you reds get data from a "blue pilot" that shows in ww2 at BoB, your 8x .303 peacemaker bullets can make mutch damaged if you make everything right and a 2-3 sec. burst is enough to: kill the pilot, make the engin burn, rip the wing off, let the pilot bail. from combatreports from your own spit/hurri pilots that fight in BoB you have to disagree with them or dont trust them.


Now, if we're going to take Little_D's advice and use combat reports to determine the DM (which I do not necessarily think is a good idea) we would have to apply it fairly to both sides.

So, how do the 109 boys feel abuot these combat report notes:

Oberleutnant Gerhard Schöpfel, Gruppenkommandeur of III./JG 26
Also I felt that the Messerschmitt was not so strong as the British fighters and could not take so much punishment.

Oberleutnant Jochen Schypek, 5/JG 54, on the 109's vulnerable radiator
The 'Indian' was right on my tail in my steep dive and opened fire. I could see bullets hitting my wings and, from the white trails on both sides, I knew he had hit my radiator... I did not have any chance of getting home and that he did not insist he complete his kill...

Nr. 1: there are enough spit/hurri pilots that write it the other way around.

Nr. 2: you have it allready in the game 100% even when you only hit the left/right cooler the other will be killed too.



Read this page, down near the bottom.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

In most cases the effective 2 second bursts are at 50 to 100 yards!

And the pilots are talking about how long they held down the trigger for! Not how many of their bullets hit the target!

Once again, I fear I'm hearing some bold assertions in this thread that don't match up squarely with the published information....

Nr. 1: i dont know how do you think they fight in war but every combatpilot was only fireing when the know they hit there target, to save bullets, and this was in most situations only possible at close distance. you can read this too on both sides, that the younger guys shoot from far away and waist bullets and when they get older and get more experience they dont waist bullets enymore they go closer and closer in and get better leedknowleg. no bullets = easy target. They want and need to kill there enemy or they will die, so most of the kills i think where wanted kills and not lucky kills. or do you think they go out and think lets try to kill the enemy?

Nr. 2: i said it all the time that there are talking only about a 2-3 sec. burst not about how mutch bullet hits. So way you dont trust your own fighterpilots when the tell in combatreports that they only need a 2-3 sec. burst to bring the enemy down ( engin on fire, wing rip off, pilot bail, etc.) in the first atack or with the first shoot. And i think we have mutch more experience to get the enemy into the perfect shooting position, because we can learn from our mistakes, they die.
and we have mutch more flightours, fights, and missions flown ( 1946 + CoD). And you can finde 100 and 100 of this combatreports on both sides that are equal and sound the same: enemy dont saw me, dived/roll/turned/loop in/etc. bring me in position, 2-3 sec. burst enemy finished after first atack point out. I dont talking about stupit turn and burn dogfight where it is logically that i need a longer burst or more bursts when the enemy see you on his six. I am talking about the 80% of all airkills where the enemy dont know that he has an problem and you can bring you in the position to kill the enemy.

Nr. 3: not worth to answer.

regards

Little_D

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-28-2013, 10:39
i surrender, it makes no sence, i was warned that it will make no sence to write all this, from red and blue guys i know, but i dont listened. sorry but i have to say they are rigth.
So this will be my last answer and post about FM/DM questions, considerations, etec and in future i only will post if i have questions to gameplay and in game settings.

Don't listen to people who say it makes no sense to write your thoughts! It's a great discussion. You have raised some issues. Slipball has raised some issues. I have raised some issues.

Here would be a summary of my main point:
A 2-3 second burst model is not necessarily appropriate to apply in all circumstances.
I have argued that the volume and mass of ammunition type, as well as the relative weakness of the structural components need to be taken into account. Slipball has also raised this concern.


even when you reds get data from a "blue pilot" that shows in ww2 at BoB, your 8x .303 peacemaker bullets can make much damaged if you make everything right and a 2-3 sec. burst is enough to: kill the pilot, make the engin burn, rip the wing off, let the pilot bail. from combatreports from your own spit/hurri pilots that fight in BoB you have to disagree with them or don't trust them.

"if you make everything right" - YES - And if you read my comments thoroughly you will see that I agree with you. I have stated more than once that factors such as the volume of ammunition hitting the target need to be taken into account.
Perhaps it is the language barrier - Ich hoere Dir zu, und Ich stimme mit Dir in dieser Hinsicht!
But "when you make everything right" is not what you said earlier; which was this from the point of view about DM-model offline and combatreport this is/was enough damaged in an well aimed burst of 2 sec. with wings rip off, pilotkills, engine on fire, pilot bail etc. to bring them down, even when only a few bullets hit.
What do you mean by a "few". Are you talking about 5 bullets, or 200 bullets? If you are talking about 200 bullets then of course, you are right.
If this is no longer your opinion then fine, I'm not going to disagree.
If you are talking about 10 bullets (a "few") , I must continue to disagree, for reasons I have already made clear. Reasons which I consider to be quite rational.

As for trusting Combat reports... I think you've missed my point. Allow me to summarize:

1. The combat reports do NOT clearly suggest that we can simply say 2-3 second burst is enough to take down an aircraft. The Combat reports clearly show that other factors come into play such as accuracy and distance to target.
2. I ask: If we are going to use combat reports for damage modelling, do we have the right then, to dismiss theas sources for other information (such as FMs)? To which you respond that for FM's we ALREADY have better sources from the factories; but we do not have better sources for damage information - I understand that your point has merit.
3. If we are going to use combat reports for the DM, which combat reports do we use? Will we spend months producing more from each side just to try and make one aircraft stronger than the other? I can find some combat reports saying the German aircraft are weak - will these be dismissed as "anomalies".

We agree quite a lot Little_D. Perhaps if we spoke face-to-face it would be easier. My writing style is direct, but it is considered and I try to avoid making statements like "all red pilots say X", or "every time I shoot a 109 he sustains no damage". The only way to avoid this is to communicate as clearly and succinctly (to the point) as possible. This means that sometimes it looks like I am being adversarial. But I am not.


Nr. 1: i dont know how do you think they fight in war but every combatpilot was only fireing when the know they hit there target, to save bullets

It looks to me like you are suggesting that every bullet ever fired in aerial combat hit it's target. Now we must know that this is not 100% true. Some pilots were terrible shots. Watch some "gun camera" videos see how many bullets miss their targets! - I can post some if you like.
I already stated earlier though, that the "successful" 2-3 second bursts seem to be those where the pilot was close in i.e. 50-100 yards - we're talking about 320 bullets here, not "a few bullets".. When the pilot was further out, sometimes he fires for 6 seconds to get the kill.

ATAG_Colander
Feb-28-2013, 11:12
My 2 cents on this discussion....

The 2 seconds "rule" was a calculation the RAF made of the time the enemy fighter would be in your gun sight due to the increasing plane speeds of the time.
It is a statistical number from which they calculated that 8 guns where necessary to inflict crippling damage to the enemy plane in an average of 2 seconds.
This average is just that, an average. It can require more or less time depending on the circumstances.

SlipBall
Feb-28-2013, 11:57
The Spitfires are very tough, you really need to load AP rounds and go for the cooling or try for a pilot kill. The cannon works well but not much fun, for me anyway. So I think it, the DM is modeled according to history pretty well, best thing to do is hold your fire till everything is just right...if you fly a Spit v. Spit you will see the 1-2 second burst give fatal damage to that aircraft(default load). The 2 guns of the 109 cant deliver that damage in a short engagement so load up with AP and be a sniper :-)

Little_D
Feb-28-2013, 13:21
Hi 92 Sqn. Philstyle,

we can talk in ts or even discuss this with pm. i think its an understanding problem or we both have at different experience level, exaple:



It looks to me like you are suggesting that every bullet ever fired in aerial combat hit it's target.

Wy do you think this from me? from my experience level i have from the flight and fights in 1946 /CoD i know in different situations when i will hit, what leed i need and how to bring me in the perfect shoot position, and my burst are no longer than 2 seconds. i know that not all bullets will hit, this is not the point. convergence is the point and how you aim (leed), when you bring you in perfect shootposition (convergence + leed) the angle between the 2 planes is not importent, when you are a good pilot. So how you aim (leed)? example: with the good post from Colander: My 2 cents on this discussion....

The 2 seconds "rule" was a calculation the RAF made of the time the enemy fighter would be in your gun sight due to the increasing plane speeds of the time.
It is a statistical number from which they calculated that 8 guns where necessary to inflict crippling damage to the enemy plane in an average of 2 seconds.
This average is just that, an average. It can require more or less time depending on the circumstances.

1: 109 make a normal climbturn and dont see you, you close into convergence range with the right leed in this situation open fire 2 sec., nothing more. so the 109 will fly one time through your bulletstream. less average bullet hits, less damaged.
2: 109 make a normal climbturn and dont see you, you close into convergence range with the right leed in this situation open fire 2 sec, and holde your leed (so the leed is for the 2 sec fireburst. the same )while your fireing, so the 109 is longer in this bulletstream = average - more average bullethits, more damaged even in an 2 sec. burst.

makes the difference. this you can see on the server and read in the combatreports from both sides, the are not talking about this, because every fight pilot knows about it and they know about how i come/or get in perfect firingposition. And we all too. I know it dont work 100% in gamen and in ww2, but more often in ww2 than ingame. or you guys realy think that they need longer to kill an enemy that dont know that he will get shot in the next 10 sec. and make no evasive action = easy target in gamen and in ww2. and this show the combatreports in short words only the importan thing, not the rest all other know that are invollved in this.

rest only over TS or PM

regards

Little_D

palker
Feb-28-2013, 14:04
Well from my limited experience flying on ATAG server you can bring 109 down with 1 second burst. There are of course many variables to consider but 10% hit ratio and 2 second burst at range 200m and less is guaranteed kill or at least that was my experience in 1946 it is possibly less in CoD since much more systems are modeled and aircraft are more easily damaged. I do not have many kills but those that i have were achieved with less than 2 seconds bursts and also i have been hit many times by marauding 109s and i would say that damage modelling is perfectly fine.
But people will always complain no matter what such is the order of things on the internet.

Catseye
Feb-28-2013, 21:49
If done to historical accuracy fire rate would be great to have in game.

Hi SlipBall,
For the most part, preliminary evaluation indicates that the rate of fire has been modelled correctly in the SIM already. Having said that, there is a lot more than just that to ensure correct historical modelling of the weapons and damage model and that is a prime effort and a very complex one for the second release as Buzzsaw has noted.

TF has a large resource of material at hand on the historic attributes of the weapons and the application of this information is already being evaluated.

Stay tuned!

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Mar-01-2013, 03:28
TF has a large resource of material at hand on the historic attributes of the weapons and the application of this information is already being evaluated.
Stay tuned!
Great news!

SlipBall
Mar-01-2013, 06:08
Hi SlipBall,
For the most part, preliminary evaluation indicates that the rate of fire has been modelled correctly in the SIM already. Having said that, there is a lot more than just that to ensure correct historical modelling of the weapons and damage model and that is a prime effort and a very complex one for the second release as Buzzsaw has noted.

TF has a large resource of material at hand on the historic attributes of the weapons and the application of this information is already being evaluated.

Stay tuned!

Thanks sounds good..standing by:-)

Kling
Apr-15-2013, 07:32
not all the time, is what i'm saying, i'll go with Buzzsaw an say it is a anomalies , i really wish we would have kept the damage report from the 109 a few nights ago, then you could have seen atleast 3 cockpit hits engine oil in every fashion, rads an water lines broke etc etc including a fire , my list on 109 was 6 inches long or more , there was 4 of us pounding this 109 , the others in group also had long damage lists on the 109 too ! which i remember saying after he was on fire etc let him go , he is done , not the case he turned climbed an engaged, so not 2 mins , an after getting me in motor putting hits on anouther he disengaged an flew home , so anomalies, there is no constant , that is what i'm saying :)

Yes ALL of the time! I spent a whole afternoon testing this. For both red and blue side you have exactly 2min 10 secs after the "water radiator perforated" message before the engine fails.

Its a set time limit and no matter what you do you cannot change it. It doesnt even matter if u switch ur engine off and glide, the oil gasket will blow and then the cylinder head will burst after 2min and 10secs.

Test it and show me a video in TF3.0 where you get a different result!
;)

MiK_684
Apr-15-2013, 10:36
Hi all,

its an interresting read but an difficult discussion topic.

I questioned myself, as i read this thread and your mentioned experinced ingame or the quoted Combat reports.

What was the angle of attack, distance to the target, the belting, the convergence, the aiming point and consequential the hit zone??

Facing it for CoD, i guess we all use the belting which does the theoretical maximum amount of damage and not the historcial ammuniton sources which were available on both sides and finally the power of the bullet type. This alone i guess, makes a big difference in the combat reports and damage observation.

Another point is the stability of the gunplatform and spraying. I dont know if the 109 with the 2x20mm shakes really that much at all axis and occurs to a "large" spraybox for the 20mm.
Just as is it for 8x .303 spraybox. I've read somewhere that it was basically like a shotgun, to hit something but how big is this Sprayboxdiameter relying to the set convergence?

My Last Point is the Ping and maybe Packet lost, it was a topic since il2 1946, but i dont know how it is today?

Guess i have more questionce than answers :D

Personally i have no troubles in shooting a Spit/Hurri or 109 down, or getting shot down flying for both sides of the channel ;D


Salute and

greetings MiK


P.s. as a comment: A big big Salute to the last Spits letting my wounded plane alive and gliding back home, i've done it to some spits,too so it was a nice experience to get this back:thumbsup:

LG1.Farber
Apr-15-2013, 10:44
Supermarine Sturmovik! :-P

Can wait for next TF mod that will address DM's and ammo.

Robo.
Apr-15-2013, 12:24
Supermarine Sturmovik! :-P

You might want to actually fly it for a week or so and then come back if you still see it that way :)

As MiK says, the anomalies are present in all planes and some of it might be due to the net code or packet loss.

LG1.Farber
Apr-15-2013, 14:07
Dont have to, some one opened the SFS files on 1c and showed the wings were 100 strength and the 109 and Hurri were 70. Plus the German munitions are supposed to WMD's... - according to red pilots.

Like I say, Looking forward to TF's next patch. :thumbsup:

ATAG_JTDawg
Apr-15-2013, 15:22
Yes ALL of the time! I spent a whole afternoon testing this. For both red and blue side you have exactly 2min 10 secs after the "water radiator perforated" message before the engine fails.

Its a set time limit and no matter what you do you cannot change it. It doesnt even matter if u switch ur engine off and glide, the oil gasket will blow and then the cylinder head will burst after 2min and 10secs.

Test it and show me a video in TF3.0 where you get a different result!
;)

Hey Kling this was before TF Patch ! this was when people were still able to muck around in their folders,
Since TF Patch I have not seen it (because of the anti cheat) an also if you have not noticed , an this is truly amazing! the number of 109s that could climb 6,000 feet with no e are all gone too !! The truly good 109 pilots can still zoom an boom . an can get the most out of their ride, but the Rocket ship era is gone. :thumbsup:

LG1.Farber
Apr-15-2013, 15:30
Nice JTdawg! Yea I agree there is much less weird things going on. :thumbsup:

vranac
Apr-15-2013, 18:07
I really don't understand what what do you expect from those cannons, they are not air to air missiles.

Do you see here some wings fallin off after multiple cannon hits?
For me it looks like devs did a very good job.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SxOIHDILmc


From 4:53


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owdxmTnw4QY&feature=player_detailpage#t=293s

Kling
Apr-15-2013, 19:06
Hey Kling this was before TF Patch ! this was when people were still able to muck around in their folders,
Since TF Patch I have not seen it (because of the anti cheat) an also if you have not noticed , an this is truly amazing! the number of 109s that could climb 6,000 feet with no e are all gone too !! The truly good 109 pilots can still zoom an boom . an can get the most out of their ride, but the Rocket ship era is gone. :thumbsup:


;)

LG1.Farber
Apr-16-2013, 02:47
I really don't understand what what do you expect from those cannons, they are not air to air missiles.



Hi Vranac - I expect when you get 10 Minengeschoss on the wing root that maybe the wings come off... Or when I fire a bucket load of AP and incendiary into the front fuselage, maybe a fire once in a while. :thumbsup: With the Hurricane this is no problem, its different with the spitfire. The weakest part of the Spit is the pilot, then oil and water, controls and once every blue moon a wing comes off and once every two blue moons we see a fire. We actually cheer when a wing comes off or we see a fire on a spit because its so rare.

Like I said, TF said they will work on DM and ammo next release, I sincearly look forward to it as I am sure it will be of the same quality as their first! :salute:

kanishka
Apr-16-2013, 03:46
Well if it's any consolation, I don't ever recall having cut the wing off a 109 with my spitfire guns either.
The only times I have ever seen a 109 wing fall off, it was because I collided my 109 into something, or if I collided my spitfire into a 109.
Same goes for the Spitfire - I have only ever lost the wing (not just the wingtip - but the whole wing) when it has been chopped off in an air-to-air collision.
it is possible, at least if the 109 is doing a high g turn

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmZkkqV3qDo&feature=youtu.be

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Apr-16-2013, 04:21
We actually cheer when a wing comes off or we see a fire on a spit because its so rare.
:

Actually come to think of it, and as I stated earlier in the thread .. wings coming off 109s are rare too.. I've certainly never had my wing shot off when flying a 109.

I have no footage of, nor have ever seen any footage of, a 109 having its wing shot off by the 8 browning.
I have however, seen 109s lose their wings in collisions, or being ripped off from diving too fast.


I agree that the DM needs revision. We all know (as Farber rightly points out), flying both sides that the battle most often ends by 1 of 2 ways;

1. Disable a control surface
2. disable his engine through "venting"

Less common seem to be the PKs, and the engine fire - at least on both the 109 and spitfire types - the Spitfire appearing to be less likely to develop an engine fire.

Although, flying a 109-E1 on a dogfight server two nights ago, I got two spitfires burning within 5 minutes - one from the wing, and the other from the engine. I was using the default ammunition - might that have something to do with it? (incendiary?)

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Apr-16-2013, 04:56
Some furtyhuer musings on wings coming off.

Here's a thought - >

Just after the TF patch - when G-limits were turned back on, I got hit in the wing by 109 Canon fire. Looking out over the wing I could see the holes in the wing covering, and the structural parts were exposed.

Now, before the patch, this situation would mean that I would fly home, provided I kept her steady and didn't do any serious maneuvering. Pulling fast, or high speed turns resulted in a spin/flick when the wing is damaged. But it didn't really have much effect on level flight, besides some induced roll.

Now, as I said above, post patch, this happened. So I did the usual thing, I dived away from the fight, knowing I could get home provided I did not carry out any high-rate turns.
However, as I hit about 320mph, the wing came off in the dive. Normally (pre-patch) this would not have happened. It seemed to me that, since the G-limits were enabled, the weakened wings will fall off, under lower G loading that the undamaged wings.

So, where am I going with this?

Leaving aside the issue that the wings of spitfires (and I would suggest possibly 109s too) do not appear to suffer from being directly blown off by gunfire, why is it that we seldom see the wings fall off, even after being confident that we have hit them?

[[Firstly there's the issue of how many rounds, and where the damage as incurred. The vagaries of that must be left aside for the moment. We can never really be sure exactly how many rounds hit the opponent. Although, as an interesting aside, anyone who claims the opposite, particularly with the 109 Cannon rounds is probably telling pork pies - especially when 109 pilots often complain about how firing the canon obscures their view of the target anyways. How one can complain about the lack of visibility on one hand, and count their hits on the other seems odd to me.....]]

I believe I can explain this, in part for the spitfire at least.

Once the wing is damaged, I find it very difficult to pull hard/fast turns without the aircraft flicking into a spin. The weakened wing would, I'm sure, come off in a high-speed turn, provided I reached the right G limit, as evidenced by the story above, where a damaged wing came off at lower speed than normal. However, because the aircraft is prone to flicking/ spinning when the wing is damaged, it's actually very difficult to pull the kind of G required to snap the damaged wing off.

The way to get the wing to fall off would be to weaken the spitfire's wing, whilst at the same time allowing the spitfire to continue to pull high-G maneuvers. But I doubt any 109 flyer would want that to happen! So, you have to hit the spitfire's wing DURING the initial High-G turn. But we all know how difficult/ near impossible that is. The greatest portion of the times my wings have been hit are not during high-G turns (with airspeed at, say 250mph +) but rather when the 109 is behind me in level (or close to level) flight. So there is very limited G-loading on the wing.

all of that said, I might be completely wrong. As with Farber, I'm looking forward to seeing how TF deal with the DM and Ammo. I've got my reservations about it at the moment also. Unfortunately, without any data in front of me, I'm not sure my opinion is anything more than guesses, albeit informed guesses.

Gromit
Apr-16-2013, 05:04
Hi Vranac - I expect when you get 10 Minengeschoss on the wing root that maybe the wings come off... Or when I fire a bucket load of AP and incendiary into the front fuselage, maybe a fire once in a while. :thumbsup: With the Hurricane this is no problem, its different with the spitfire. The weakest part of the Spit is the pilot, then oil and water, controls and once every blue moon a wing comes off and once every two blue moons we see a fire. We actually cheer when a wing comes off or we see a fire on a spit because its so rare.

Like I said, TF said they will work on DM and ammo next release, I sincearly look forward to it as I am sure it will be of the same quality as their first! :salute:

Really need to put this Minengeschoss round into context, put bluntly the Germans got it wrong, increasing the volume of explosive in the 20mm still gives very little explosive force, it's simply too small, and reduces the real damage inflicting component of a cannon shell which is the splinters, the M round used a lighter casing with more filler, the lethal radius for the blast is in inches whereas splinters fly much further and penetrate more components or bodies!

If you doubt this there's two undisputable facts, since ww2 weapons technology has advanced leaps and bounds, there's not one autocannon that uses the M concept any more, lower fillers, higher velocities and thicker casings producing more fragments has been scientifically proven to be more effective.
Secondly the Mauser revolver cannon the Germans were working on at the end of WW2 was taken by the UK and France and developed into the Aden gun (Harrier,Jaguar,Hunter etc) or the DEFA (Mirage etc), both these weapons used the M 30mm round both dropped it for a lower capacity higher velocity round after scientific ballistic testing!

Gamers see the "Minen" bit and think these rounds go boom instead of bang, The notion of a bigger bang seemed to make sense, it produced a more dramatic effect to the guy firing it (more smoke), but it's lethality is actually less than the non M round!

Macro
Apr-16-2013, 07:17
didn't know that gromit, I'm one of those who thought it'd more boom!

going back to the fires, i had a very interesting bug that i wish i recorded in the spit but didnt have fraps running. and i doubt i'll be able to recreate anytime soon due to the lack of fires in the spit.

my engine got shot up by a 109, not sure if it was mg or cannon but i was hit hard. it did the usual oil on windscreen and jumpy failing engine but i was fairly close to England when it happened so i managed to land it. the wrong thing is my engine was on fire, i could see the flames through the oil on the screen. so it does happen. the bug is that after i landed i sat for a few mins watching it burn from the cockpit with no other damage occurring or injuries to the pilot. surely this would have caused major problems as (i think) the fuel tank is right behind the engine? also the engine didnt appear to fail anytime sooner than what it would have if just the oil/coolant was damaged.

I honesly think that the spits wings should go considering some of the damage seen from the cockpit. At the same time I wonder if sometimes the damage represented by the graphics looks a lot worse than what it should. sometimes i see a hole a foot wide and can see all the way through the wing made from a M round. Im sure the guys who do the DM will research this.

Gromit
Apr-16-2013, 07:37
you can see the explosive effect in the top video Vranac posted, puffs of black smoke, yet the planes pretty much intact, a 20mm is only able to carry a small amount of explosive, about what a demo team would use to blow a door lock, what you can't see is the shrapnel ripping through the plane!

years ago when I was in the military I was an operator on the Rapier SAM, I had a bit of a surprise in training when I was informed the warhead was 1lb of explosive! that sounded ridiculously small so I questioned it and was educated into the effects of splinters from fragmentation warheads, their lethal envelope and their effect, to say I was surprised is an understatement!

you can see the blast and smoke from a shell, but you don't see the fragments, I suppose that's where we all get confused as to what's happening!


as to the game, unless there is some form of scientific method of calculation that allows a representation of damage from all the factors involved we will have to accept the current model as a reasonable average and get on with it, I certainly wouldn't even know where to begin to quantify how damage could be measured, then applied to the aircraft!
As it is I think it works ok, makes sense to a degree, but it's always going to be nothing more than an estimate!

Gromit
Apr-16-2013, 08:34
Looking at some of the links to other video's on Vranacs post, I just watched the p47/51/38 gun camera video, ok ignore the propaganda speeches but lots of film from both sides, and interestingly lots of venting 109's

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COXU2v-uwXM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQcKzNNfl6A

one thing has me wondering, there are lots of film of fw190 wings exploding, this can only be the magazine for the 20mm detonating?

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Apr-16-2013, 08:39
one thing has me wondering, there are lots of film of fw190 wings exploding, this can only be the magazine for the 20mm detonating?

More likely the case.
Hence the stories (true or not, I don't know) about FW190 pilots firing off all their ammo sometimes to avoid the chance of this happening.

LG1.Farber
Apr-16-2013, 10:54
Actually come to think of it, and as I stated earlier in the thread .. wings coming off 109s are rare too.. I've certainly never had my wing shot off when flying a 109.

I have no footage of, nor have ever seen any footage of, a 109 having its wing shot off by the 8 browning.
I have however, seen 109s lose their wings in collisions, or being ripped off from diving too fast.


I agree that the DM needs revision. We all know (as Farber rightly points out), flying both sides that the battle most often ends by 1 of 2 ways;

1. Disable a control surface
2. disable his engine through "venting"

Less common seem to be the PKs, and the engine fire - at least on both the 109 and spitfire types - the Spitfire appearing to be less likely to develop an engine fire.

Although, flying a 109-E1 on a dogfight server two nights ago, I got two spitfires burning within 5 minutes - one from the wing, and the other from the engine. I was using the default ammunition - might that have something to do with it? (incendiary?)

I use 20% incendiary. Yea 109 wings now come of due to pilot pulling "over 10 G's, although the pilot doesnt even black out, must be my corset underwear! :devilish:


I always thought the power behind the M-geschoss was it was AP HE and exploded inside the aircraft not out side of it and that that constriction of the escaping gasses as we all know is what gives more effect to exploding things. I'm not challenging you on you point Gromit, I am sure you have read up on it and I take your word for it, I'm just inquiring as to another aspect of what you described.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Apr-16-2013, 12:52
I always thought the power behind the M-geschoss was it was AP HE and exploded inside the aircraft not out side of it and that that constriction of the escaping gasses as we all know is what gives more effect to exploding things. I'm not challenging you on you point Gromit, I am sure you have read up on it and I take your word for it, I'm just inquiring as to another aspect of what you described.

Good point.
I wonder if i's possible to do some maths to work out what the force of a M-Geschoss round explosion would be at, say 2cm and again at say 5cm (something like the areas inside a wing, for example).

Robo.
Apr-16-2013, 12:59
I use 20% incendiary. Yea 109 wings now come of due to pilot pulling "over 10 G's, although the pilot doesnt even black out, must be my corset underwear! :devilish:

Any fighter aircraft in the game will now lose wing when you pull more than 10G, not just the 109. The structural G damage is not necessarily accompanied by blacking out or even G-LOC because it occurs when you exceed the given limit momentarily, e.g. even for a split of a second at any time of the flight.


I always thought the power behind the M-geschoss was it was AP HE and exploded inside the aircraft not out side of it and that that constriction of the escaping gasses as we all know is what gives more effect to exploding things. I'm not challenging you on you point Gromit, I am sure you have read up on it and I take your word for it, I'm just inquiring as to another aspect of what you described.

The M-geschoss had very thin walls, it was designed to explode on the surface. More explosive filling and plenty of shrapnel.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Apr-16-2013, 13:31
The M-geschoss had very thin walls, it was designed to explode on the surface. More explosive filling and plenty of shrapnel.

Would have worked better against jet-turbine intakes I would imagine......

Gromit
Apr-16-2013, 13:33
I use 20% incendiary. Yea 109 wings now come of due to pilot pulling "over 10 G's, although the pilot doesnt even black out, must be my corset underwear! :devilish:


I always thought the power behind the M-geschoss was it was AP HE and exploded inside the aircraft not out side of it and that that constriction of the escaping gasses as we all know is what gives more effect to exploding things. I'm not challenging you on you point Gromit, I am sure you have read up on it and I take your word for it, I'm just inquiring as to another aspect of what you described.

Yes that was exactly the notion behind it, but post war developments showed heavier shells not only penetrated further into the structure but the larger more numerous fragments created more damage further from the detonation point, one of the issues with the ADEN 30mm M round (actually a ww2 German round) was that it often failed to penetrate, glancing off even aircraft skins if the angle was enough or detonating on the surface if the structure was stiff enough, the cure was apparently a heavier shell with less explosive, one of the reasons for this was you fired the heavier shell at a higher velocity as the casing could accept the accelerations, on target it carried more Kinetic Energy penetrating further before exploding, add in the thicker shell casing developed higher burst pressures from a smaller charge and the result was larger high energy fragments and a wider radius of lethality.

have to remember the Germans did not have the luxury of post war development to test all this!

in contrast the Hispano proved highly lethal with a 130g shell with roughly 10g of bursting charge!

Gromit
Apr-16-2013, 13:34
Would have worked better against jet-turbine intakes I would imagine......

except the thin walls produced less and smaller fragments, you cant make fragments out of something that's not there!

ATAG_NakedSquirrel
Apr-16-2013, 19:14
The M-geschoss had very thin walls, it was designed to explode on the surface. More explosive filling and plenty of shrapnel.

Yep, works great for killing the pilot or shredding the outer skin of the plane, you can blow the entire wing off with a lucky hit, but I find some of the other cannon rounds work better for destroying engines or taking off stronger components.

9./JG52 Lopp
Apr-16-2013, 19:36
Yeah I'm With Robo on this G-limit bug. If I'm pulling 10g's for a split second I must be over 5g's constant, and like he said I'm not even blacking out. 5g's
without a G-suit is enough to cause G-loc.The G-limit is a great idea but very hard to implement. In a virtual plane you have no sensation of G- load,
sometimes when eyes fixed on distant object you don't even have a sensation of speed. Where as with CEM you can hear what your engine is doing,
and read the gauges. Hopefully the Team can look into this.

9./JG52 Hans Gruber
Apr-16-2013, 21:25
Agree 5card. I remember watching the TF trailer and when g limits were introduced we thought finally Spitfires might not be able to perform some of the insane high g turns they get away with pre mod. Instead it's 109s shedding wings and the pilot doesn't show any sign off blackout. You can pop the wings off a He111 or Ju88 simply by pulling back hard on the stick. It is physically impossible to exert that much force on the controls of such a large aircraft. The g limit feature is badly flawed.

ATAG_NakedSquirrel
Apr-16-2013, 22:42
Sometimes I think I'm playing a different game than you guys. I'm on the verge of black out pretty often the 109. The only time I've popped the wings off was when the patch first came out, I wanted to see how fast I could dive =P.

Robo.
Apr-17-2013, 02:32
Lopp you're right but as I am trying to explain, it really matters if the G force is continuous or momentarily. As you said the main problem is that you can not actually sense the forces affecting pilot's body, and you can not feel the resistance in the stick either - this is very hard to implement and it is possible (in any sim I know) to exceed the G limit even just for a very short time because of how our joysticks allow us to apply more elevator than it was realistically possible. Generally all aircraft are more maneuverable at high speeds than they should be. (I believe Force feedback helps a little bit in this matter.) This short high G would not necessarily cause blackout but it will certainly cause fatal structural damage.

notafinger! - pre patch it was all aircraft able to do insane maneuvers, not just the Spitfire. You will not shed wings unless you use elevator and elevator trim in the same time. There is an important note in the TF readme regarding the G limits and bomber aircraft recommending adjusting joystick sensitivity for the above reason.

NakedSqirrel - to be honest, these two guys are one of the most capable 109 pilots I know in this sim, we all just need to adjust to the new flight models

LG1.Farber
Apr-17-2013, 03:48
You will not shed wings unless you use elevator and elevator trim in the same time.


DING DING DING! JACKPOT! Flickering pot axis anyone? is this why wings suddenly fall off at mid speed maneuvers when gently pulling on the stick! :goofy

Continu0
Apr-17-2013, 05:17
DING DING DING! JACKPOT! Flickering pot axis anyone? is this why wings suddenly fall off at mid speed maneuvers when gently pulling on the stick! :goofy

Ooooh... did you check that? Is this really the cause? Because I have one Squad-mate who faces that problem... (getting wings fallen off...)

9./JG52 Hans Gruber
Apr-17-2013, 06:17
notafinger! - pre patch it was all aircraft able to do insane maneuvers, not just the Spitfire. You will not shed wings unless you use elevator and elevator trim in the same time. There is an important note in the TF readme regarding the G limits and bomber aircraft recommending adjusting joystick sensitivity for the above reason.

That is not true. I don't use trim in maneuvers and my stick sensitivity is not set particularly high. In the mod I have lost a wing simply by rolling the aircraft. I can't think of one time I even began to grey out before losing a wing. There is zero feedback to the pilot. If the aircraft goes above that g limit for a nano second the damage is done. Its a badly implemented feature.

vranac
Apr-17-2013, 06:30
That is not true. I don't use trim in maneuvers and my stick sensitivity is not set particularly high. In the mod I have lost a wing simply by rolling the aircraft.

Could you reproduce this,pls? And record a track maybe.

I have recorded one wing break but guy did a waaay excessive negative G maneuver.I tried to break wings at speeds less than 400 km/h and I couldnt do it.
But I have CH joystick which has very long travel and its not so good for very tight turns.

Osprey
Apr-17-2013, 06:30
An engineering question. There appears to be a focus on wings falling off or in particular being shot off, and face it, we love this effect and I miss it from 1946 with the cannon etc, but from a strength perspective, the 109 and Spitfire wings are a different design entirely. I imagine that the elliptical wing of the Spitfire is extremely strong, Eric Brown certainly demonstrated the strength of the Spitfire airframe (albeit a lightened model) in the FAE mach testing which was performed on the Spitfire. Engineer comment please.

Too much talk is to the Spitfire anyway imho, I know this is a Spit DM thread of course! But let's not forget this was not the majority fighter of the BOB for the RAF, and right now we have a Hurricane which can only out turn the 109 at medium speeds, I don't think a lot changed on the Hurricane turn but the 109 stability was corrected so now the 109 can close and stay with a Hurricane in a descending spiral, blipping the nose to pop shots away easily. 501 and 615 are going to set up some testing on this and will report findings, right now the Hurricane has it's balls cut off defensively, if the 109 pilot is not below average.
The point is if the Hurricane was brought up to spec then more people would fly it and less complaint would perhaps occur about the Spitfire because 109 drivers would simply come across Spitfires with less frequency. In ATAG df's it's pretty much guaranteed, in SOW Airwar Campaign it's just bad luck.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Apr-17-2013, 06:33
501 and 615 are going to set up some testing on this and will report findings. .

If there is any help, or extra bodies, you would like for this, please let me know.
I'm all about testing.

Osprey
Apr-17-2013, 07:18
OK thanks but we should have it covered. 501 and 615 are dedicated Hurricane pilots and we have a choice of 109 Staffels in ACG more than willing to shoot us down ;)

9./JG52 Lopp
Apr-17-2013, 10:18
I'm not trying to say this is a spit vs 109 thing. For all in know its the same for the spit. I'm also not asking that 109 should turn any better than it does already.
It's that the pilot has no idea what G he is actually at that makes this such a problem. The way it is now you are forced to give away angles because of this
invisible line you have no sensation or feedback of in fear of losing your wing.


Here is a little clip of me flying in some different aircraft and losing my wing. https://vimeo.com/62972230

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Apr-17-2013, 10:41
I'm not trying to say this is a spit vs 109 thing. For all in know its the same for the spit. I'm also not asking that 109 should turn any better than it does already.
It's that the pilot has no idea what G he is actually at that makes this such a problem.

I agree. I hope/ think others do too.

I've dived in a spitfire and without warning = wing is gone.
It would be nice to hear some stress, or fell some vibration just before it pops.

If implemented, this should apply irrespective of side, irrespective of aeroplane.

Robo.
Apr-17-2013, 10:54
Farber it is highly unlikely it's caused by a spiking pot unless your joystick is seriously knackered. You definitely won't lose wings by 'gently pulling on the stick'. Of course you can test it more if you suspect that as an issue.

notafinger! if you can, please provide a video of the aircraft losing wing just by rolling. Was it a heavy bomber loaded with bombs by any chance? The feature is implemented in a reasonable way (and the 10G limit is rather generous to compensate for the lack of complexity of the structural damage and it has been stated that it might be further refined in a future TF release by adding details such as partial damage etc.) and it is making the sim more realistic. No more insane maneuvers. All players are more careful.

5card - I agree there is no way of saying how many Gs you're pulling and that is a major drawback of any flight simulator. Do you have any suggestion on how to overcome this in a WWII sim played on a PC? I personally find it not too difficult to adapt and I have not lost a wing since I was testing this feature and I don't feel like I am giving up angles. I like the video, you have to work hard to lose a wing on a fighter aircraft. It is a bigger problem with the bombers, as the TF readme suggests, tweaking the controls sensitivity might help.

I will make IvanK aware of this thread, perhaps he can explain in more detail. :thumbsup:

vranac
Apr-17-2013, 11:27
I agree. I hope/ think others do too.

I've dived in a spitfire and without warning = wing is gone.
It would be nice to hear some stress, or fell some vibration just before it pops.

If implemented, this should apply irrespective of side, irrespective of aeroplane.

Well, I hear increased wind noise and see cockpit vibrations before losing elevator or ailerons.

My friend RL pilot and very good virtual pilot also, mentioned lack of structural damage with high G maneovers as biggest drawback
of this sim before it was implemented.I must say that I was against how DT implemented that in old il2 (try Tempest ~500 km/h and gently put nose down).
I was also telling him that you will pass out before you go over the limit but he said , no you will lose a wing.

Of course it is much easier to feel the plane and G in real life but if you are not carefull with stick you can break your plane.

ATAG_Snapper
Apr-17-2013, 11:30
I'm not trying to say this is a spit vs 109 thing. For all in know its the same for the spit. I'm also not asking that 109 should turn any better than it does already.
It's that the pilot has no idea what G he is actually at that makes this such a problem. The way it is now you are forced to give away angles because of this
invisible line you have no sensation or feedback of in fear of losing your wing.


Here is a little clip of me flying in some different aircraft and losing my wing. https://vimeo.com/62972230

5Card, that's an excellent clip that clearly demonstrates the concern on premature/no warning structural failure concerns of the LW aircraft mentioned.

As already mentioned in this thread, the Spit loses it's wings in a dive above 430 mph IAS with little/no warning. However, in the maneuvres you've shown with the 109 I've never experienced wing failure. I DO experience a near-total/total blackout which causes the stick & rudder controls to freeze -- frequently resulting in an out of control crash. This is totally acceptable IMHO and simulates loss of consciousness quite effectively.

Usually the onset of a blackout can be reversed if caught soon enough by relaxing the controls (elevator) and quickly reducing throttle. I lost a lot of dogfights when the patch was first introduced by yanking too hard on the stick and being unable to regain control of my aircraft before "colliding with terrain". But the wings would only fly off if 430 mph IAS was exceeded.

Perhaps a similar system could/should be enabled in LW aircraft?

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Apr-17-2013, 11:31
Of course it is much easier to feel the plane and G in real life but if you are not carefull with stick you can break your plane.

This is true. IRL you feel the G.
In-game you have to work it out from other cues, to estimate your acceleration in any direction.

I apply a three-stage system..

1. La la la (flying along merrily)
2. Whoa... steady now phil.. (when I hear the wind sound, or see the VSI go over 300mph)
3. Uh oh! crap! (when something falls off)

I generally don't fly at the level 2 at all, except very rarely. I would almost NEVER fight at level two, unless engaging a bomber from his level 6.

Perhaps some guys are confident fighting at level two, then that's just the risk they take I suppose.

LG1.Farber
Apr-17-2013, 11:43
Ooooh... did you check that? Is this really the cause? Because I have one Squad-mate who faces that problem... (getting wings fallen off...)

It would make allot of sense considering how random it feels. How can I possibly test it? What about the people it doesnt happen to? - do they have elevator trim set to key? or maybe they have not bound it?! Is it happening seemingly randomly to those who have it on a axis? Happens to me about once a week but like Lopp said, its a limitation you just can't get a feel for... and doesnt seem to make sense.

9./JG52 Lopp
Apr-17-2013, 11:48
Robo, thanks. It would be nice of you to let any of the devs know.

I don't know what the solution is, maybe make blackouts much sooner,
or make it so X amount of force on the wing has to be applied for more than
a split second. The way it is now seems like if your planes G load spikes
a certain value even for a split second its gone. How long should a wing be
able to withstand 10Gs you're going to ask. Thats a good question. I wish I
had a good answer for you.

Like I said before I'm not asking for a UFO, but now it makes very difficult
to try to evade being shot when trying to escape. You just can't hardly
manuver. Thanks

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Apr-17-2013, 12:01
5card, you make two interesting points I'll respond to.


How long should a wing be
able to withstand 10Gs you're going to ask. Thats a good question. I wish I
had a good answer for you.

From reading above (from Robo and others), it seems that TF tried to get around this by setting the limit (10G) above (more generously than) what they thought was realistic. That is, you can pull MORE G than normal breaking point.

However, the problem is, still that because the limit is a "hard" threshold, pilots still lack any kind of warning that they are on the cusp.



Like I said before I'm not asking for a UFO, but now it makes very difficult
to try to evade being shot when trying to escape. You just can't hardly
maneuver. Thanks

It sounds like evading at very high speed was difficult anyways. Especially in the 109 where, if the reports are to be believed (and I stress the IF), applying full deflection at high wing loading was limited by two factors - (1) the cockpit layout and (2) the pressure on the stick.

I realise the G issue is different, but I'm not sure we can expect our aircraft to behave well at high speed. Rolling a spitfire is also very slow at high speed. Give it a try at 300mph. One then has to chose to either chop the throttle and sacrifice energy, or risk high G loading, and possible structural failure.

vranac
Apr-17-2013, 12:11
It would make allot of sense considering how random it feels. How can I possibly test it?

Try this tool: http://www.share-online.biz/dl/6OGEPELMPN


I apply a three-stage system..

1. La la la (flying along merrily)
2. Whoa... steady now phil.. (when I hear the wind sound, or see the VSI go over 300mph)
3. Uh oh! crap! (when something falls off)

I generally don't fly at the level 2 at all, except very rarely. I would almost NEVER fight at level two, unless engaging a bomber from his level 6.

Perhaps some guys are confident fighting at level two, then that's just the risk they take I suppose.

:) you are right of course.


Lets say I'm driving a car 150 km/h. Would I turn my wheel hard at that speed?
Well, I could but I dont think that would be good for me and my car.

Gromit
Apr-17-2013, 12:20
Spit ii is supposed to have a dive limit of 470mph as shown below-
Diving Trials

.......Several dives were carried out and the results are given in the following table. The diving limits for this aeroplane are:-

Maximum A.S.I. = 470 (P.E. assumed as -20 m.p.h.)
Maximum Engine R.P.M. = 3000 with throttle < 1/3 open.
Maximum Engine R.P.M. = 3600 with throttle > 1/3 open.
Maximum Boost = +9.0 lb/sq.in. with throttle > 1/3 open.

.......The aeroplane was trimmed for full throttle level flight. Centre of Gravity 7.4" aft of datum (extended aft limit)

Now that's ASI not TAS so unclear what actual speed is achieved, 430 should be too low?

ATAG_Snapper
Apr-17-2013, 12:25
Spit ii is supposed to have a dive limit of 470mph as shown below-
Diving Trials

.......Several dives were carried out and the results are given in the following table. The diving limits for this aeroplane are:-

Maximum A.S.I. = 470 (P.E. assumed as -20 m.p.h.)
Maximum Engine R.P.M. = 3000 with throttle < 1/3 open.
Maximum Engine R.P.M. = 3600 with throttle > 1/3 open.
Maximum Boost = +9.0 lb/sq.in. with throttle > 1/3 open.

.......The aeroplane was trimmed for full throttle level flight. Centre of Gravity 7.4" aft of datum (extended aft limit)

Now that's ASI not TAS so unclear what actual speed is achieved, 430 should be too low?

I can't get above 430 mph ASI with or without wings! LOL

Robo.
Apr-17-2013, 13:29
Farber just try disabling that trim axis for the time being and do a test without it. I am using an (old) X-45 throttle + MSFF as my HOTAS and the Saitek pots are infamous for their spiking which I can clearly see in game as twitchy trim wheel. I don't have any problems whatsoever.

5card I made the FM guys aware of this discussion. The structural G limits were implemented as they are as a workaround of some sort. The limit was set to +10G / -4G as a generous average whereby the damage is always fatal. (The 109F had an absolute limit of 7G - I do have a document from 109F frontline G testing somewhere that was conduced due to quite a few accidents. For comparsion, the G.50 had a limit of +14G, this was different for every plane, depending on the design etc. Bombers like B-25 were very very low depending on gross weight, something like +3,5 / -2G.) There is a whole lot more to it - rolling G, repeated overload and material fatigue, G limits with external loadouts and so on. Obviously what we have at the moment is reasonably simplified but in general very correct.

Also, in real life, the wing or other structures would be often just bent or otherwise damaged (rivets popped out, landing gear dropped, bent fuselage) and the aircraft would be simply written off as unsafe in many instances. Or more often in real life, one pilot would exceed the limits and another pilot flying that plane would suffer structural damage a week later because the wing could not withstand even half of the expected G load. There are many many documented cases and the whole topic is very fascinating. The more you read about it the clearer it becomes how important this is for realism and also that it is not so easy to implement this into a game. We actually had this very conversation in DT when this feature has been implemented for Il-2 1946. Same problem - lack of feedback and many broken wings before you learn how to fly properly again... There is a small 'G' indicator as a helpful feedback, maybe something to implement here, too... I agree with what you're saying regarding the lack of feedback in game and grayout etc., but I strongly believe this is a very important feature.

Gromit
Apr-17-2013, 14:11
The 109F was a pilot killer when first fielded, a number of them "clapped hands" when the wings broke at the root, much recrimination between Willy Messerchmitt and Milch as he often accused Willy of building his aircraft too light!

don't believe the Emil had such low structural limits?

9./JG52 Lopp
Apr-17-2013, 14:39
Robo, thank you for your trouble. I see what you're saying about reasonably correct.
Problem is the virtual fights online are not. Most guys won't take the time to climb
up to ALT, they slug it down in mud with very low E. Hence a lot of guys have never
experienced this problem. I try to get ever bit out of my aircraft as I know you do as well.
Hopefully they can come up with something to let you have an idea that you're close to
trashing your plane.
Thanks again.

Robo.
Apr-17-2013, 14:40
The 109F was a pilot killer when first fielded, a number of them "clapped hands" when the wings broke at the root, much recrimination between Willy Messerchmitt and Milch as he often accused Willy of building his aircraft too light!

don't believe the Emil had such low structural limits?

Yes the testing study I mentioned was done just because of these accidents. The problem with early F was that it was not up to specs regarding the structural limits (which were identical on the paper for both types iirc). Nice insight into the values actually measured in combat sorties - not quite what we're seeing online, is it? :D

Here is the document:

http://mitglied.multimania.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/lw/

109_tragwerk.pdf

LG1.Farber
Apr-17-2013, 14:44
Try this tool: http://www.share-online.biz/dl/6OGEPELMPN



:) you are right of course.


Lets say I'm driving a car 150 km/h. Would I turn my wheel hard at that speed?
Well, I could but I dont think that would be good for me and my car.

I will give this tool a crack Vranac but I totally disagree with your hi friction rubber tyres being anything like an aeroplane in terms of handling.


Farber just try disabling that trim axis for the time being and do a test without it. I am using an (old) X-45 throttle + MSFF as my HOTAS and the Saitek pots are infamous for their spiking which I can clearly see in game as twitchy trim wheel. I don't have any problems whatsoever.

5card I made the FM guys aware of this discussion. The structural G limits were implemented as they are as a workaround of some sort. The limit was set to +10G / -4G as a generous average whereby the damage is always fatal. (The 109F had an absolute limit of 7G - I do have a document from 109F frontline G testing somewhere that was conduced due to quite a few accidents. For comparsion, the G.50 had a limit of +14G, this was different for every plane, depending on the design etc. Bombers like B-25 were very very low depending on gross weight, something like +3,5 / -2G.) There is a whole lot more to it - rolling G, repeated overload and material fatigue, G limits with external loadouts and so on. Obviously what we have at the moment is reasonably simplified but in general very correct.

Also, in real life, the wing or other structures would be often just bent or otherwise damaged (rivets popped out, landing gear dropped, bent fuselage) and the aircraft would be simply written off as unsafe in many instances. Or more often in real life, one pilot would exceed the limits and another pilot flying that plane would suffer structural damage a week later because the wing could not withstand even half of the expected G load. There are many many documented cases and the whole topic is very fascinating. The more you read about it the clearer it becomes how important this is for realism and also that it is not so easy to implement this into a game. We actually had this very conversation in DT when this feature has been implemented for Il-2 1946. Same problem - lack of feedback and many broken wings before you learn how to fly properly again... There is a small 'G' indicator as a helpful feedback, maybe something to implement here, too... I agree with what you're saying regarding the lack of feedback in game and grayout etc., but I strongly believe this is a very important feature.

No I think I will leave my controls in one piece thanks. Yes Saitek pots are NOT very hi tolerance, hence I suggested it. Does this G limit have anything to do with component strength?

I would love to see the documentation Robo. Please send it to me. How come also the effect is always the same, loss of a complete wing? We saw in TF vid many parts breaking on the Hurricane which brings me back to is it down to DM what breaks due to Hi G?


The 109F was a pilot killer when first fielded, a number of them "clapped hands" when the wings broke at the root, much recrimination between Willy Messerchmitt and Milch as he often accused Willy of building his aircraft too light!

don't believe the Emil had such low structural limits?


The Bf109F had a complete redesign of the wing including the method used to fix the wing! A few pilots were killed because of this fault and the problem was addressed. However the horror stories that came from it probably had a greater effect on pilots than wing losses. In fact the pilot in my avatar Wilhelm Balthasar was probably killed by this very thing. However here we are addressing the Emil.

Robo.
Apr-17-2013, 14:55
Oh not at all 5card, all I did was I let IvanK know, hopefully he can step in here and clarify things better than me. I see the things very similar like you do and I guess a small G indicator like in 1946 would be great.
For now I resorted to flying much more careful and caring about my corner speed etc.

Farber I meant temporarily disabling the trim axis in your in game options - controls, not actually taking your HOTAS apart. That way you can see if it's the spiking pot or not.
The document is in the post above, it's in German though, I forgot about that. :doh: The structural damage is always fatal at this moment because that's how it's been implemented into the game. The simplified version is better than not having it at all, it is very possible that it will be improved in the future.


edit - I found a brief translation of the doc by JtD:


The title is "Measurements of wing stresses of fighter aircraft in front line service".

Page two - Overview: "This is the first part of the result of acceleration measurements on fighter aircraft of Bf 109F-4 type in front line service. The measurements span over about 75 hours of flying. The highest acceleration measured so far is 6.2g."

Page four - description of the classification of data.
Frequency of load changes is 700/h. Due to gusts and elevator. That's more than twice of what was measured on aerobatic aircraft, but lower than what earlier gust measurements had predicted.
In the evaluated measurements there was 6.2g once, 5.9g once and a few times more than 5.4g. In further 50h measurements, not yet evaluated, there was 6.2g once more and 5.9g once more. In another 20h of measurements 5g were never exceeded.

Page three - obviously originally page 5
First paragraph says "This result is surprising, since the design value of the wing (7g) has never been reached."
Second paragraph says that curves for the load cycles can already be seen as reliable for fatigue calculations, the maximum values should be approached with a lot of care 1. pilots were flying with a lot more care now after the problems mentioned earlier and 2. there was a lot more combat in July where the problems occurred than there was in August / September, where little problems were found.
Third paragraph says for maximum values further measurements should be taken, in particular with the Fw 190, which has lower elevator forces and is more manoeuvrable than the 109.
Last paragraph says that the measurements could not totally clarify the causes for the wing malfunction, however, the highest measured acceleration is so low that damage can hardly be attributed to exceeding of the calculated strength of the wing. It would be possible, however, that the movement of the centre of lift over the wing at high mach numbers, as found in recent wind tunnel measurements, may put the wing under an additional twisting stress so that the save g's are considerably reduced. The half last sentence says that ailerons should be checked, too, probably for effect on wing stress.

The charts are g load from left to right and number of occurrence bottom to top. Both are for 100h of service. Page 5 is the number of values that fell into each of the 0.25g wide classes, page 6 is the number of load cycles.

As noted, not necessarily relevant to the Bf 109E but interesting nevertheless.

LG1.Farber
Apr-17-2013, 14:58
Further to my post, I would like to add the 109 has by all accounts a very vocal airframe.

German is not a problem Robo.

coolhand3011
Apr-17-2013, 15:33
Maybe there could be a sound effect added just before the critical 10G mark, like the quick sound of a few rivets popping around 8 G's to let you know you are turning quickly into no mans land. I know back when I was flight instructing, albeit not in a 109 or a spit, I did alot of spin training in old 172's and 152's. When the students were a little slow on the recovery and let the speed roll up to the red line and were a little over eager to pull away from the ground you could certainly hear the plane complaining. Being a flight sim like the others said, beyond sound and blacking out there are not a lot of clues to your exact G pulling out of a dive or making high speed manuvers. Sorry to contribute to keeping the thread derailed.

Catseye
Apr-17-2013, 15:33
But the wings would only fly off if 430 mph IAS was exceeded.


I've always been troubled by this speed number as reading Shenstone's Biography (the guy that designed the Spit Wing (Canadian eh), it was tested up to mach .80 - exceeding that of the 109 and also a higher G number capability - the figure escapes me at the moment but I do know that the TF guys have this information)

I'm not an engineer but I find this interesting.

Just a last note. The damage model and weapons model are to be a part of the next patch. So, it makes this discussion interesting in that it brings to light some observations by the community, but at this stage it is moot pending what comes out in the next patch.

Cheers,

vranac
Apr-17-2013, 16:19
I will give this tool a crack Vranac but I totally disagree with your hi friction rubber tyres being anything like an aeroplane in terms of handling.


Farber, I gave that example not from the physics or aerodynamic point of view, but from the the pilot(driver) point of view.
Pilots are trained how to fly and I'm shure they were told what are the limits of the plane that they are on.
Because planes were tested before by the test pilots which are usually much better pilots then average ones.

LG1.Farber
Apr-17-2013, 16:30
Farber, I gave that example not from the physics or aerodynamic point of view, but from the the pilot(driver) point of view.
Pilots are trained how to fly and I'm shure they were told what are the limits of the plane that they are on.
Because planes were tested before by the test pilots which are usually much better pilots then average ones.

Quite correct.

Kwiatek
Apr-17-2013, 16:35
Actually i see 2 problems with over G load in 109 E. First is that elevator effectivness is too good at high speed so you could get critical 10G limit quite easy. In real 109 it wasnt such easy to do it. IRL Spitfire had more problem with these casue of sensivity and effectivness elevator ( expecially in Spitfire MK V with aft COG). There is note in Spitfire MK II manual that pilot have to be carefully at higher speed with elevator movement casue its sensivity could casue strees airframe. Second problem to me is that in CLOD 109 elevator is more sensivity now then Spitfire one. Should be rather opposite. I think things would be better with corrected high speed controls effectivnes for all fighters but also with corrected sensivity of pitch for all these fighter. I think and belive TF FM modders will do the job and we will see some improvements in fututre mods :)


BTW i read book about German test pilots during WW2 where one of them was tested pilot for maximum dive speed for 109 F-G types casue they got info from frontlie about 109 accidents in dive. During test they discovered some problems ( e.x. with trim lubricant which froozen at high alts and cause near impossible to out of dive and with ailerons opposite effect) - with changed lubricant and limited ailerons movement test ended with dive limit 750 kph IAS at ab. 5km above these speed plane loose stability ( wave drag).

LG1.Farber
Apr-17-2013, 17:28
Actually i see 2 problems with over G load in 109 E. First is that elevator effectivness is too good at high speed so you could get critical 10G limit quite easy. In real 109 it wasnt such easy to do it. IRL Spitfire had more problem with these casue of sensivity and effectivness elevator ( expecially in Spitfire MK V with aft COG). There is note in Spitfire MK II manual that pilot have to be carefully at higher speed with elevator movement casue its sensivity could casue strees airframe. Second problem to me is that in CLOD 109 elevator is more sensivity now then Spitfire one. Should be rather opposite. I think things would be better with corrected high speed controls effectivnes for all fighters but also with corrected sensivity of pitch for all these fighter. I think and belive TF FM modders will do the job and we will see some improvements in fututre mods :)


BTW i read book about German test pilots during WW2 where one of them was tested pilot for maximum dive speed for 109 F-G types casue they got info from frontlie about 109 accidents in dive. During test they discovered some problems ( e.x. with trim lubricant which froozen at high alts and cause near impossible to out of dive and with ailerons opposite effect) - with changed lubricant and limited ailerons movement test ended with dive limit 750 kph IAS at ab. 5km above these speed plane loose stability ( wave drag).

I dont even know where to start... In fact, I wont even bother.

palker
Apr-17-2013, 17:44
The 109F was a pilot killer when first fielded, a number of them "clapped hands" when the wings broke at the root, much recrimination between Willy Messerchmitt and Milch as he often accused Willy of building his aircraft too light!

don't believe the Emil had such low structural limits?

Not the wings those were horizontal stabilizers, it was caused by the removal of the external braces that you can see on E 109s. The stabilizer construction was not modified properly and they broke of with high G loads.

Ivank
Apr-17-2013, 18:25
The current implementation is based on a single Overload value or ultimate load. This is our first attempt at doing this in CLOD. If you exceed this value the game engine will produce failure. In addition at present this limit is a symmetrical G limit and no reduction is applied for rolling pull outs (perhaps in the future). again in the future we may implement a similar system to that used by DT in IL2. That is a weight/loadout variable system ... that still however has a fixed upper limit.

For the present the system is quite generous (perhaps slightly more so on the German side of the house). If you are regularly ripping wings off then you need to re-vist your technique. We all have become accustomed to simply pulling back on the stick and going for it. IRL that is a recipe for guess what ... pulling a wing off ! Any time you are above your Ultimate load corner speed you are in this territory .... that is a fact of life. This speed is in simple terms Vstall x SQR of the load factor. So take a Spitfire with say a nominal Stall speed of 70MPH that means above 221mph (70 x 3.162) you have the ability to exceeded the ultimate load in TF V1.0. IRL you also have the issue of stick forces increasing with increasing airspeed, this acts as a limiter to a certain extent. However its a fact of life if above Corner speed you need to tread with caution. One also needs to have a think about why you are trying to turn at speeds above corner ? ... its not really efficient. Which gets me back to technique... and perhaps having a little thought of what you are actually trying to achieve ? If you need to be getting around the corner then you need to back around corner speed. Above corner you are not turning efficiently and getting into over g territory.

The biggest issue is no physical G feedback sitting in your chair flying your PC. In DT IL2 implementation this was discussed at length and the compromise was to provide a pop up relative G cueing system (Flashing G icon) to indicate approaching a limit.

"5g'swithout a G-suit is enough to cause G-loc"
Sorry thats just not true unless you are an un prepared lard ball :). I spent 12 years of my life flying fighters so understand the effects etc of G. A G suit is only going to give around 1G more in G tolerance anyway. Now in my senior years I regularly fly a YAK52 and can still pull sustained G in excess of 6 and still stay awake :). A fit G current pilot can easily sustain a lot more G than than 5. Red Bull pilots are getting up over 10G in some of their manoeuvres . G LOC is a function of total G and G onset rate. the sequence of events is usually GREY OUT ---- BLACK OUT ----- G LOC. A snatch pull above corner could easily result in exceeding the structural limits before you grey out or even black out.

Foul Ole Ron
Apr-17-2013, 19:07
I did some testing on this earlier with the P51D in DCS as that has a G meter and it models flight dynamics better overall. Load limits for the P51D are +8/-4G. Started at about 13k feet at around 200 mph each time. If you do a -6,000fpm dive to say 400mph and then pull it fairly gently so you rise up to around 6-8g pretty quickly the pilot will start to black out before structural damage occurs - get the caving in effect starting at around 5-6g. However if you repeat the dive and then pull out with some more force on the stick you'll hit >8g extremely quickly and it's goodbye wing time in the Pony. There's no blackout effects at all - I'd say that you wouldn't even have time to G-loc it happened so quickly as that G meter literally flew up to -10g. There was almost no audible warning either it all happened so fast - just a quick shudder and then the left wing cracked off. The P51D in DCS is normally a very audible bird and you can easily tell when you're flying on the envelope.

I'd say what's happening in CLOD is as Robo has said - people are too used to throwing their crates around the sky and it's way too easy to pull back on the stick in situations where we would actually really be working hard to haul it back. Pulling out of a 400mph dive into just a 5g climb would take around 90 pounds of force in the P51D. I don't know how the 109 or Spit would compare but I'd imagine it'd be something fairly comparable and pilots may well have used both hands in such situations. Add in the fact that the limited travel in our sticks makes it very easy to pull the stick into these crazy g maneuvers and it's fairly easy for pilots to over-stress their planes in CLOD and DCS. I'd wager that 109 drivers are feeling it more with their energy fighting tactics. In the P51D I found it way easier to hit the lethally high G loads when pulling out of a high speed dive as opposed to pulling a hard turn in level flight - in fact with the accelerated stall in the Pony I couldn't get it past 6g in that situation. Hopefully TF will continue to refine this but it's a step in the right direction overall and forces people to fly within somewhat more realistic envelopes.

Gromit
Apr-18-2013, 04:50
Actually i see 2 problems with over G load in 109 E. First is that elevator effectivness is too good at high speed so you could get critical 10G limit quite easy. In real 109 it wasnt such easy to do it. IRL Spitfire had more problem with these casue of sensivity and effectivness elevator ( expecially in Spitfire MK V with aft COG). There is note in Spitfire MK II manual that pilot have to be carefully at higher speed with elevator movement casue its sensivity could casue strees airframe. Second problem to me is that in CLOD 109 elevator is more sensivity now then Spitfire one. Should be rather opposite. I think things would be better with corrected high speed controls effectivnes for all fighters but also with corrected sensivity of pitch for all these fighter. I think and belive TF FM modders will do the job and we will see some improvements in fututre mods :)


BTW i read book about German test pilots during WW2 where one of them was tested pilot for maximum dive speed for 109 F-G types casue they got info from frontlie about 109 accidents in dive. During test they discovered some problems ( e.x. with trim lubricant which froozen at high alts and cause near impossible to out of dive and with ailerons opposite effect) - with changed lubricant and limited ailerons movement test ended with dive limit 750 kph IAS at ab. 5km above these speed plane loose stability ( wave drag).


I have wondered myself about the 109 losing wings through over G in pull outs, in a fast dive the aircraft loaded it's elevators up to the point of immovability in all accounts I have seen, that should have two effects, one the 109 should not be able to pull the huge G pull outs we see in a high speed dive, and secondly, and because of that, you shouldn't be able to reach the structural limit of the airframe? unless you are passing the critical dive limit how could a 109 break it's wings?
that doesn't add up?

Osprey
Apr-18-2013, 07:19
There are plenty of accounts of 109's going straight in because the elevator gets too stiff to move. Eric Brown comments about the forces required to keep efficient and in control in the 109 at high speeds in his book "Wings on my Sleeve". This is one of the reasons why the 109 was not considered a good aerobatic aeroplane by RAE because at slow speeds the ailerons will snatch and at high speeds it becomes a physical strain, standing on the rudder to trim up for instance.

In game we are used to ridiculously violent changes in direction, in particular I am stunned by the bouncing bunting 109 types who in real life I am sure would have shattered clavicles and a broken coccyx from such moves. I would like to see some way of more realistic physical strain on the pilot which would help I think, for instance the pilot becoming physically tired during a sustained turn fight and less able to make moves or even getting an injury, for all sides, and I would certainly support the 109 being able to hold higher G because of the more supine seating position - maybe we can take him out on runs and to the gym so he lasts longer in combat like in GTA San Andreas ;) (yes it's a joke....)

Looking forward to these kinds of things being implemented. Can it be taken beyond the reddening screen?

9./JG52 Lopp
Apr-18-2013, 07:55
Thanks guys for the very informative, responses.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Apr-18-2013, 08:33
, and I would certainly support the 109 being able to hold higher G because of the more supine seating position - maybe we can take him out on runs and to the gym so he lasts longer in combat like in GTA San Andreas ;) (yes it's a joke....)

I would like my RAF pilot to have had his legs amputated. This would increase his G tolerance, ala Douglas Bader.


Also joking....

MiK_684
Apr-18-2013, 09:17
There are plenty of accounts of 109's going straight in because the elevator gets too stiff to move. Eric Brown comments about the forces required to keep efficient and in control in the 109 at high speeds in his book "Wings on my Sleeve". This is one of the reasons why the 109 was not considered a good aerobatic aeroplane by RAE because at slow speeds the ailerons will snatch and at high speeds it becomes a physical strain, standing on the rudder to trim up for instance.

In game we are used to ridiculously violent changes in direction, in particular I am stunned by the bouncing bunting 109 types who in real life I am sure would have shattered clavicles and a broken coccyx from such moves. I would like to see some way of more realistic physical strain on the pilot which would help I think, for instance the pilot becoming physically tired during a sustained turn fight and less able to make moves or even getting an injury, for all sides, and I would certainly support the 109 being able to hold higher G because of the more supine seating position - maybe we can take him out on runs and to the gym so he lasts longer in combat like in GTA San Andreas ;) (yes it's a joke....)

Looking forward to these kinds of things being implemented. Can it be taken beyond the reddening screen?

Hi,
well i also heard that you can overstress the airframe of the spitfire by to hard pulling and pushing of the stick. I have to look in the manual again.
I dont know the technical word in english but its like force assistant. Thats maybe why Mr.Brown was used to it,flying allied planes at those relevant high speeds.

Well the 109 Pilot is sitting on his parachute i guess its a little absobation for his coccyx (doesnt know this engl word before:huh: ) and would u say that Extra 300,etc Pilots have the same Problem today?
You talking of young trained Pilots flying a 109 for about 2-3 years. Don't you think they get used and trained to that factor? Furtherone the biggest power is in the legs of an human:dthumb:


cheers
MiK

Edit: http://de.scribd.com/doc/4598146/Pilots-Notes-Supermarine-Spitfire-Mk-IIA-IIB-Merlin-XII-Engine
General flying Site 8 to 9:thumbsup:

Aerobatic Site 10-11

Gromit
Apr-18-2013, 09:23
well you can't really porpoise a plane like we do in the game pilot or no, the cost in energy retention would be huge, yet we can bob up and down and do the funky chicken whilst losing very little speed, bit daft really!

Osprey
Apr-18-2013, 10:08
I must say Mik that I'm quite surprised that somebody can even defend violent yo yo bunts and climbs as even remotely realistic as you are suggesting. Most of the guncam footage shows the opposite, the aircraft under fire doesn't move a great deal (compared to your average CFS pilot) and I suspect this is largely due to all of these physical forces that act on them, death or injury or even inexperience.

Belly landing on the sea was very dangerous with the sudden stop injuring the pilot in various ways, even more so than the 'combat landing' where pilots usually smashed their faces into the gunsight, often to the point of knocking themselves unconscious, with pilots preferring to bail out instead. In game these are perfectly normal actions without consequence though.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Apr-18-2013, 10:34
Belly landing on the sea was very dangerous with the sudden stop injuring the pilot in various ways, even more so than the 'combat landing' where pilots usually smashed their faces into the gunsight, often to the point of knocking themselves unconscious, with pilots preferring to bail out instead. In game these are perfectly normal actions without consequence though.

Too true. Aircraft should slice into the water and break apart, rather than just thud into a nice mattress on the surface.

MiK_684
Apr-18-2013, 10:46
You missunderstood me, as it seemed.

To clearify, it was more meant in direction of the fatigue symptom and the elevator behavior in general.

It was not my intention to proof the "funky chicken" (just better as violant yoyo bunt ;D ) flystile.



To your actual Point of guncam footage. Well, i would add the suprise moment and to be in a state of a shortly shock.

Foul Ole Ron
Apr-18-2013, 10:55
P51 pilots were strongly advised not to try ditching in the water and to bail instead. With the air scoop position underneath the plane it would result in the plane being submerged in about 1.5-2 seconds. Think I'd prefer to go for a bailout any day of the week.

In relation to the high g sudden bunts and climbs and various other violent maneuvers that are seen in the game yeah it's probably not too realistic. When you see Spits and 109s doing airshow maneuvers today we probably think that they look fairly tame but those pilots are actually having to work pretty hard - especially at the bottom of any loops where those sticks get heavy. The only way it can be somewhat realistically modelled for us lot with our short travel, no force-required sticks is to have it coded into the game which I would think would be a very complex thing to get right. Not sure how people would respond if they pulled back all the way on their sticks during a dive pullout only to see the stick move slowly in the game as their simulate pilot struggled to haul it back.

Talisman
Apr-18-2013, 11:04
Gents,

G-Force

As I understand it, the level of G-force a pilot can withstand is one thing, but the rate of on-set of that G-force is another thing to take account of. The rate of on-set can really catch real life pilots out in high performance aircraft and send them to sleep and I suggest that CloD virtual pilots now need to pay more attention to the rate of on-set by being more gentle with control inputs to save black-out/red-out and airframe damage. I would not want to use an on-screen G-meter in CloD. I can hear the airframe moaning through my earphones in CloD and I can feel it through the stick (I have a FF stick, but presume you can still feel a harder force is needed to move controls in non-FF sticks?). As soon as I flew with the new TF patch I had to adjust my handling of the controls to prevent black-out and airframe damage because of the new aircraft modelling; I now hardly think about it because I am used to managing it, but at the beginning I lost many virtual lives.

Me 109 Dive

After Spit and Hurry pilots learned to carry out a half-roll (to mitigate carburettor cut-out) to start a dive to stay with the Me 109, Douglas Bader, in his book 'Fight for the Sky', said the following.

Once we discovered how to stay with the Me 109 at the beginning of its dive, its structural weakness became evident. The Me 109 pilot of those days would dive away at about 75 degrees (not quite vertical) but he would never hold the dive for long. On such occasion a 109 left my Hurricane standing in the initial stage of the dive, but he started pulling out gently long before I expected and I overhauled him. My maximum airspeed on the clock, at 8,000ft where I started to pull out, was only 320 mph and yet I was closing the gap quickly. I remember the occasion as though yesterday. The Hurricane was bigger, slower and less streamlined than the Messerschmitt or the Spitfire. It appeared impossible to catch the former in a dive, but other Hurricane pilots had similar experiences as mine.

Gromit
Apr-18-2013, 11:10
320mph at 8000ft equates to 371.2mph, for those interested-

http://www.csgnetwork.com/tasinfocalc.html

Kwiatek
Apr-18-2013, 13:11
I have wondered myself about the 109 losing wings through over G in pull outs, in a fast dive the aircraft loaded it's elevators up to the point of immovability in all accounts I have seen, that should have two effects, one the 109 should not be able to pull the huge G pull outs we see in a high speed dive, and secondly, and because of that, you shouldn't be able to reach the structural limit of the airframe? unless you are passing the critical dive limit how could a 109 break it's wings?
that doesn't add up?

I think that in 109 it would be more problem to reach ultimate airframe load factor then e.x. in Spitfire or P-51 ( what i know in Spitfire MKV and P-51 was added some weight into elevator control system to got more heavy elevator and prevent overstress aiframe by pilots at high speed manovuers). Probably it was still possible to overstress airframe in 109 too but it should be much harder to do then in SPitfire or P-51. Actually what i tested in CLOD there is much more easy to overstress 109 then british fighters. I know that in flight model values actually 109 has more sensivity pitch then Spitfire or Hurricane which i think is wrong - the most sensivity should be Spitfire. Maby here is a problem. I could do very sharp pull up in Spitfire at high speed without loosing wings where in 109 wings broken. It shouldnt be that way. Other hand still in CLOD high speed controls effectivness in all planes is not changed yet but what i know TF will take care about these.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Apr-19-2013, 09:38
Posted elsewhere today, but relevant to this thread.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNOA4ozu4cs

Minor visual damage to a single wing in the Spitfire does have a very obvious effect on performance.

worth noting.

-Sven-
Apr-19-2013, 14:42
Gamers see the "Minen" bit and think these rounds go boom instead of bang, The notion of a bigger bang seemed to make sense, it produced a more dramatic effect to the guy firing it (more smoke), but it's lethality is actually less than the non M round!

The normal HE round fired from the MGFF contained very little explosive in comparison with the M round. The thin walled M round with a bigger explosive filler would create more smaller pieces of shrapnel, whereas the thick walled round with less explosive would create less but but bigger chunks of shrapnel. For the BOB early lightly-armoured type of fighters you didn't need much penetrating power, they didn't have thick wings or fuselage or armour like bombers would.

I would agree the effect of M-geschoss is overrated, because people think it penetrated before exploding ( that's not the case in early war) but to say it's less lethal is doubtful IMHO.

VO101_Kurfurst
Apr-22-2013, 14:46
5card I made the FM guys aware of this discussion. The structural G limits were implemented as they are as a workaround of some sort. The limit was set to +10G / -4G as a generous average whereby the damage is always fatal. (The 109F had an absolute limit of 7G - I do have a document from 109F frontline G testing somewhere that was conduced due to quite a few accidents.

Actually, the break limit for the 109 was listed as about 10,8 G, the bendinglimit as around 7,8 G IIRC. This is from a German 1939 document, Bf 109 variant unspecified, but I doubt it has changed a lot between the variants. This was different than the "safe" limit normally specified in aircraft cards (generally 6,6 - 6,8 G listed for the later 109 variants, heavier being lower). The safe limit always had considerable amount of tolerance built into to - a factor of about 1,5. There was also a safety class - H5 was for fighters, iirc H4 for 109s with gondies or other external stores. I suppose but do not know for certain this H-classes effect (lowers) the safety factor.

Somewhere I have read a later 109G tests resulting in 12 g pull, without failure.


For comparsion, the G.50 had a limit of +14G, this was different for every plane, depending on the design etc. Bombers like B-25 were very very low depending on gross weight, something like +3,5 / -2G.) There is a whole lot more to it - rolling G, repeated overload and material fatigue, G limits with external loadouts and so on. Obviously what we have at the moment is reasonably simplified but in general very correct.[/QUOTE]

One has to be very careful with the "g limits", just like any other spec, the condition varied from country to country, so did the amount of safety factor designed in. But I agree that +10 / -4 g-limit is quite reasonable, it was about this much for fighters. There is very limited amount of data to make reasonable variation in it anyway from plane to plane.

Most if not all the mysterious structural failures were down to either a faulty assembly, or some other, not well understood factor at the time. Rolling stresses in dive contributed to loads greatly (both Spitfire and 109 papers note this, I am sure others too), Mark V Spitfire structural failures occured to the movement of CoG with new equipment and subsequently developed longitudal control instability, 109F tail failures (as well as Typhoon) were down aerodynamic and vibration factors (engine vibration frequency, aileron flutter etc). "Strenght" was seldom an issue, unexpected loads were... better not open that can of worms IMHO.

Robo.
Apr-23-2013, 07:43
Yes I am well aware of the fact, as I said there was a whole more to it and the current system is very simplified. We don't have bent structures or material fatique or differences between individual aircraft or even rolling G effects etc etc etc... It is certainly better than what he had before and it might be even more detailed in the future - that was my whole point. :thumbsup: