Damage Model Bug Stomping

[Pursuivant]

The results are in. Attached is a tab-separated text file which shows the results of point-blank twin .50 caliber MG fire against all the planes in the game. It can easily be turned back into a proper table in the word processor or spreadsheet of your choice.

In addition to lots of stuff that really can't be fixed, like the way that IL2 models wing damage and breakage, there are many things which can be fixed, including outright "hook" problems and DM omissions.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1442263874

All of what I mentioned in my previous posts still stands. But, I'll add that many of the Japanese aircraft have really odd DM choices. For example, in terms of survivability, the Ki-43 series is far tougher than the A6M series, even though they were planes of comparable mass and size. The Ki-21 series also seems to be quite durable - possibly moreso than the G4M series. Arguably, the Japanese Navy aircraft should be made more durable.

In any case, it's clear that DM modeling is technically quite tricky and that there's no really good formula for doing it.

[Furio]

Thank you, Pursuivant, an excellent job!

I don’t think that our game is “flawed”. In my opinion it is (relatively) simple, but this simplicity allow us to have an unequalled planeset, today covering almost all major combat types and a lot of minor ones.

My feeling is that many of the inconsistencies tend to level out each other. For example, I never noticed that B239 wings are unbreakable, because it is relatively easy to break up its fuselage.

But the real value of your experiment is for us all. Now we have a lot of facts to read and ponder about, a reality check for all the claims about “porked” or “uber” planes.

Thanks again.