4.12.2 de-bugging

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Woke Up Dead

Somewhere in this thread (I can't find your exact quote now), you say that you suspect that engines are modeled as one big block. There are threads a year or two old here that deal with damage modeling, they show that damage models are more sophisticated than you believe them to be,

Regardless of how various engine systems are modeled, I'm getting very consistent results. So, it's not some sort of random "critical hit," unless I'm really running afoul of the law of averages.

Originally Posted by Woke Up Dead

You also say that the engine on a Buffalo seems to damage differently than the same one on a C-47. Are you taking shots to the engines from the same angle for both planes? I.e., are you chasing a Wellington or Val with the C-47 to take hits from the front?

I was actually wrong about the C-47. It didn't use the R-1820 engine (although the DC-3 did).

Flyable planes in the game with versions of this engine are the Buffalo series, the SBD, and the CW-21. I will try to fly them all to see if it's a problem with how the engine is modeled, or how the engine is modeled in the Buffalo series.
The P-36 also used this engine but it's not flyable.

My procedure is to get up a QMB flight in arcade mode using Ace Wellington III (or TBD-1 for the slower planes), then deliberately use stupid tactics by overtaking them from 6 o'clock level without maneuvering much. It's a good way to get a nose full of lead and test engine and front armor DM. Arcade mode lets me see exactly where the bullets hit. I then compare odd results against a 3-view drawing to see if they actually make sense.

Originally Posted by Woke Up Dead

Don't rifle-caliber bullets have plenty of energy even after traveling 300m, never-mind just 50m?

Yes, they do, but smaller bullets lose energy at a proportionately faster rate than larger rounds, so a rifle caliber bullet hit at 300 meters isn't nearly as dangerous to machinery as a hit from 50 meters or less.

It's very realistic for a .30 bullet to punch into an aluminum engine block or go through 20 mm of armor glass at 50 meters or less. But, at 300 meters, armor glass should easily be able to defeat most .30 caliber rounds, and there's even a chance that a bullet might be stopped or deflected by an engine block.

Early war planes with armor plate were specifically armored to be protected against .30 caliber bullets fired at even close combat ranges, so at anything other than point-blank range, armor plate should stop them.


"all bullets are treated as being incendiary"

Originally Posted by Woke Up Dead

Sorry, you're simply wrong here, check the fourth post of this thread: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...hlight=belting

Thanks much for this information, since it sort of proves my point.

First, you'll notice that there is no ball ammo in the mix for any of the guns listed. It isn't even modeled! That's highly unrealistic, since supply shortages or deliberate loadout choices might have meant that ball ammo was used.

Second, you'll notice a very high percentage of bullets that can start fires - HE, API, Tracer, APIT, Minengeschoss, etc. They're not all incendiary, but they might as well be! In some beltings, there's a 5/6 chance that a particular bullet is a potential fire starter!

Third, you'll notice that many beltings have a very high ratio of tracer bullets, sometimes as low as 1:3! 1:5 or even 1:10 was more typical.


"Since damage modeling is an art, it seems to me that IL2's developers have made planes that were notably vulnerable in combat for any reason excessively vulnerable to any sort of damage."

Originally Posted by Woke Up Dead

No, just look at the Zero. Famously fragile, and in-game the early-war Zeros are particularly easy to set on fire, but have you ever had a damaged or stopped engine in a Zero? Fragile fuel tanks in wing-roots, but super-tough engines.

My point here wasn't that all notably fragile planes have been made too fragile, but that some of them have been.

I'd also suggest that the A6M2 is another exception that proves the rule. It's very flammable - perhaps too flammable - and falls apart nicely if it's hit by a few cannon shells or a solid burst of 0.50/12.7 mm MG fire. Seemingly realistic.

But, since the A6M2 was a wonderful, well-liked airplane, and early war Sakae 21 engines were very good, arguably the designers went the other way and made the engine "too tough" (or "just right" depending on how you look at it).

After all, in terms of power, mass, compression ratio and power to mass ratio what makes the Sakae 21 so much better than contemporary radial engines like the R-1820 or Bristol Hercules?