if bomber DM stay the way they are it might be the only counter
It looks like there is some kind of threshold for the TNTe of HE rounds, for their HE explosion being able to penetrate the skin and do damage. On the MK 108, the HEI-T with 90g TNTe, cannot do damage to the gunners, while the HEI with 102g TNTe can do damage to the gunners:
HEI-T with 90g TNTe
HEI with 102g TNTe
1 Like
Hmm… Does look like that.
But alas, all looks a bit wierd and more like a legacy bodge job from a decade ago than anything realistic.
+1 for this. I also think modelling the leading edge of wings separately (as their own damage model in individual smaller sections) wouldn’t be a bad idea either as damage there should affect the lift/drag of the aircraft significantly more than damage on the trailing edge.
6 Likes
“Honestly, one of the things they need to do, is separate the damage model of the airframe from the damage model of the skin. With this the airframe could be strong, while the skin is weaker.
If a plane loose to much of its skin, it looses its lift, while if its airframe gets damaged enough, it could break in worst cases.” +1, more modules and sections the merrier
They really should work on properly modelling the skin and airframe someday
I feel like the extremely basic way they currently do it is gonna cause a lot more issues in the future
1 Like
99.99% of War Thunders problems summarised in a single sentence
3 Likes
The 0.01% is the volumetric damage model lol
I was thinking the Players fault, but yeah. that too
1 Like
Honestly, I think that the survivability updates to bombers should be postponed for an update so that we get a more refined model. Gaijin should work constructively with the community to find an accurate and balenced way of implementing this into the game and should give players a place to post sources and evidence that contradict or support certain mechanics and generally just not rush this into the game without working out the bugs
4 Likes
Not a fan of postponing bombers for 3 months, I think it should be added to make enjoyable as a stopgap as a more intricate model is in the works
Or at least add a largely toned down version this major. But yeah, it might be a good idea
Next major is actually October/early november, so its only one month ish
I would be good with a more toned down version than what we currently have but I don’t want to spawn into GRB and get killed by five pe8 that just cycle through and nuke spawn every two minutes without ever taking any meaningful damage
I wasnt even thinking about it from a GRB PoV, purely ARB
Apparently they tweaked the mechanics today or yesterday and bombers are a bit easier to kill now, (just checked) so I am actually not too concerned now, but we would still benefit from more breakable sections on planes in general
3 Likes
I don’t think it should be postponed, toning it down should be enough
They can do a more refined model later on
Yeah. We’ll see what they cook up this Dev cycle, though im guessing they’ll just tweak the numbers, and not add anything that has been suggested in this thread
2 Likes
Agreed
To be honest I would like to see this in release for some time. Even couple of days like in case of pseudo mitl mclos missiles or reverse drift puma bug. Its just hilarious.
https://youtube.com/shorts/-fm0Qv1xZs4?si=kOBhCCCWr-ApF8fq
Imagine what would “strike aircraft survivability buff” look like on a10 or su25 if it came instead of this. Armored jet attackers with insane survivability being one of top priorities.
Uhm please redirect me if there’s a more fitting thread for this but: I thought this change would affect ANY multi-engined aircraft specifically listed as “bomber” in game.
But I didn’t see the German FW 189 A-1 on the list of affected planes. Yes, in reality it was a recon-plane with 4x 50kg jokes of a bomb - but ingame it gets bomber air-spawn, has two engines and even a tailgunner. So by what rule did this “slip through” the communicated type of vehicles affected?