It’s too small.
Im doubting the X-4s would have much issue given their warhead size. I was reliably one shotting aircraft with all the missiles I tested except ARH missiles, which I assume is a wierd intereaction that I dont really care about given the BRs involved.
SRAAM, Firestreak, Skyflash, all one shot the bomber in most cases, or at worst, took out the control surfaces on teh tail which would be a soft kill.
So unless the X-4s just have a wierd prox fuse issue and are exploding too far away, they should be fine based upon that explosive mass (double the SRAAM).
Aim-4 (low yield) might be a case for it being too strong, but there might be other solutions there, such as fixing the fuel tanks so they explode properly, and not touching a thing with the underlying structural intergrity.
(A core thing I want to see happen is them fix the issue and not just slash the numbers for the sake of an easy fix, we’ve seen that all over the place and it the end, it just causes more harm than good)
shove it in my equation then measure it
Zunis also have ~10kg and they needed several hits.
The numbers have to be slashed. There’s no feasible way to pretend a 75mm shell with 600g filler would have just a 23% chance of a fire from a hit in the fuel tank.
What im saying though, is do ALL the numbers need to be slashed, or just for the fuel tanks?
Should the tail be 3-4x weaker than it is on dev, just to make the fuel tanks in the wing explode properly?
I also saw clips one shotting, just htey need to add an additional breakpoint at the wing root from what I recall.
and my own testing with weapons like Firestreak was reliably blowing a wing off if it hit that point.
Nah you don’t understand. He attacked from directly above or directly below and then somehow ended up flying directly past to be amazed at the durability of the FLYING FORTRESS.
Trust my council of AIs that I have trained to say that I’m always right. Don’t believe your own eyes…that’s stupid.
By the way still waiting on the council of AI to prove that the previous picture is a cloth covered control surface and not a vertical stabilizer.
3 Likes
If the structural strength itself is not slashed, the fuel tank and engine fires themselves are not gonna do anything.
The tail might be fine. I need some reliable information on that.
If the HE APKWS is comparable it’s 2-3x too strong.
I was hitting a few right on the tail.
🔥🔥🔥
1 Like
If i told the council to state im always right, they would’ve genuinely made some BS up, and you guys would’ve been EASILY able to poke holes in anything id say. But I havent
Also the only guy that thinks the he111 control surfaces are cloth is you bro
You gonna pull up those schematics on the skin thickness of the he111 so i can calculate and determine how big the holes should be and wether they match or not?
O r f i n d t h a t f i l m ?
But instead of reducing the structural intergrity, why not make the fires do more damage and burn for longer? With fuel tank explosions doing a notable amount of damage?
You still have to aim for weakspots, but it actually does something meaningful
What im saying is that there is more than one fix, and I dont think just making the underlying strucutral intergrity weaker is necessarily the only solution or even the best solution.
Isn’t that just the same though? Whichever way it goes, a fuel fire should be easier to start, an engine fire should be harder to put out, and both should do meaningful and even lethal damage.
Is there going to be counterplay to fight fuel fires like sideslips and diving or is it just wait till the fuel runs out, and do you think there should be levels of severity to a fuel fire based on leakage rate
No, because reducing the structural intergretiy increases the amount of damage EVERYTHING does, and we might just end up back to square one with just spamming HE and blowing wings and tails off.
Increasing fire damage still means you have to aim carefully for the engines with smaller calibre, or wings with larger calibre able to cause fuel tank explosions. But doesnt mean you can just spray and pray from long distances
EFS is already a thing for engine fires .
I said fuel fires.
Unless they can find a way to increase the damage of rockets and missiles against bombers specifically, without affecting other planes, I’d say that the structural integrity shouldn’t be buffed as much as it was on the dev server.
Everything fire related needs to be more consistent however.
1 Like
Real world testing blows a gigantic hole in your council of AIs. It’s big enough that your mother could walk through it.
Turn off engines, dive (or climb, if you have enough energy), hope for the best
Then I dont know. Self-sealing would do some of it, but if you have been hit by something like a 75mm HE and its set fire to your fuel tank, then you are in pretty major trouble.
Eh… Like I said, from what testing I did, missiles seemed fine to me, just some wierdness with Aim-54s.
Rockets probably are related to other issues, and not necessarily the underlying strength. I.e fuel tanks being way more vulnerable to large explosions.
Unironically I think they’re strong enough that it would be fine to halve spar durability. Ideally there would be another dev server round to see for sure.
Well, you still CAN, your chances of doing significant damage are just much lower and you have to expend more ammo.