FWs Durabillity

[RPS69]

Well, I didn`t count the bullets, but on planes that won't break their wings, you could keep firing at them for almost two minutes with unlimited ammo on, and they won't break. I just got bored holding the trigger.

All the others got a reasonable time to happen, and the Zero was specially fast.

Actually the Zero was the only one I could make it happen on a dogfight.

The others require an almost impossible sustained fire on them.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by RPS69

Well, I didn`t count the bullets, but on planes that won't break their wings, you could keep firing at them for almost two minutes with unlimited ammo on, and they won't break. I just got bored holding the trigger.

That's pretty good evidence!

Originally Posted by RPS69

The others require an almost impossible sustained fire on them.

That makes sense. You have to punch a whole lot of half inch wide (i.e., .50 caliber sized) holes into a vehicle to make it fall apart on its own.

[Pursuivant]

I would say that this picture is proof that it's currently impossible to start an engine fire in the FW-190A-4.

Using RPS69's test mission as a base, I changed the flyable plane to the G4M-11. From the rear gunner's position I blasted away at the FW-190A-4 parked behind me with a 20mm cannon at point blank range. Typically, just 10-15 seconds of fire was sufficient to "vaporize" the target.

All shots hit, all of them hit the engine, although shrapnel from explosions quickly killed the pilot and caused heavy damage textures to engine and fuselage. In all cases, the engine almost immediately stops working and starts to smoke slightly. But, in several different trials I never got an engine fire result.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1441891628

Edit: Also true for all other variants of the FW-190A in the game. Interestingly, I found that after I cease fire for a sufficiently long time for the "arcade arrows" to disappear, the FW-190 vanishes as well. So, it's possible to vaporize the target plane without ever setting it on fire!

[KG26_Alpha]

I don't see why thees so much emphasis on setting the FW190A engine on fire, the engines useless mechanically by then,
and inside the cockpit you see smoke from the engine,
perhaps set up the full list of in game ac and go through each one with the tail gunner 20mm as the reference point and create a list

Or is this a FW190 witch hunt

Just a very quick test

Fw190A has same wing damage as P47 regarding 0.50 cals, they wont cut off either,
but you can still fly with reasonable control unlike the FW190's few wing hits and game over RTB.

Unless the Betty 20mm is that much different from Hispanos & MGFF i don't see it being that far off a reasonable comparison DM test on the ground.

Wings Off 1-2 second burst 20mm Same for P47

[RPS69]

At he start of the thread, the original poster complained about 190's wings not breaking while under .50s fire.
I tested it with 20mm, and all break fine.

Still, with .50s there are lots of planes that won't break, not just the 190.

Also as you said, 190's are the ones that suffer the most on their capacity to keep in combat after a single .50 shot on a wing. This was always wrong.

So the conclusion is that this whole thing have nothing to do with the 190, but with planes that are impossible to break their wings with .50s

If the aircraft damage tables are equal to the ground objects, it may happen as with the BK37 vs KV1. They can't penetrate their upper armor, no matter what, because there is a table stating so.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

I don't see why thees so much emphasis on setting the FW190A engine on fire, the engines useless mechanically by then

It's the difference between gliding home and getting roasted alive in the cockpit if you don't bail out. Isn't that important?

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

perhaps set up the full list of in game ac and go through each one with the tail gunner 20mm as the reference point and create a list

That's exactly what I'm doing on another thread, although I'm starting with .50 caliber guns. It might sound like BS, but I'm getting some very interesting results. In particular, the US Navy fighters from Pacific Fighters have some strange wing breakage issues. It seems like you have to hit them in just the right spot to knock their wings off.

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

Fw190A has same wing damage as P47 regarding 0.50 cals, they wont cut off either, but you can still fly with reasonable control unlike the FW190's few wing hits and game over RTB.

Yep, that's a problem. It should be possible, if difficult, to take the P-47's wing off. And, the FW-190 should be a bit more controllable if its wing is heavily damaged.

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

Unless the Betty 20mm is that much different from Hispanos & MGFF i don't see it being that far off a reasonable comparison DM test on the ground.

I chose the Betty for expediency, because it's the one flyable plane in the game that has a 20mm tail gun (at at least the first one that popped into my head).

[gaunt1]

Maybe try with Pe-8. That has ShVAK, the strongest 20mm of the game.

[Ice_Eagle]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

And, the FW-190 should be a bit more controllable if its wing is heavily damaged.

FW-190 pilots had a specific set of complex instructions on what to do in their
heavily damaged 190:

1. Jettison canopy
2. Bail

Source: Horst Petzschler

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Ice_Eagle

FW-190 pilots had a specific set of complex instructions on what to do in their heavily damaged 190:

1. Jettison canopy
2. Bail

Yes, but what counts as heavy damage? And, why is it that no amount of .50 caliber MG fire can break the wing of a FW-190 or P-51, when its possible for .50 caliber MG to break the wing of a Spitfire MkIX, a P-63, or a dozen other fighters of similar vintage and size?

The way that IL2 models wing damage and breakage seems to be highly subjective, and wings seem to be far more fragile than they should be.

My guess is that this is because IL2 doesn't have a mechanism for modeling progressive weakening of a given part due to damage, nor a method of accurately modeling the effects of G-forces and air resistance on those damaged parts.