I love that Gaijins attempt at a durability fix for bombers has exposed how bad the damage model for planes actually is and how bad missile warheads are modelled lol
Holy shit he learned how to take pictures from the side
1 Like
that was a well known fact before that too
1 Like
I would do one more test directly underneath just to be doubly sure but overall, they do need to tone it down for some aircraft
I think they’re stuck between a rock and a hard place since they have had damage models and weapon damage so dysgenic for the longest time that they can’t make changes without screwing something else up.
They can do something useful by using this mechanic
and making it do something with DMs.
Here’s one of the sparrow III.
and another.
I found one of the sparrow I or II. But it looks like more like a propaganda film as it completely detonate a B-17 in the second clip, meanwhile other footage is more modest. This is combat footage here.
Oh hey both spars are done, that wings coming off in the exact situation it came off irl
1 Like
When I ask AI to calculate the hole size produced by HE 30MM MK.108 I get entirely different results than his little nonsense graphic.
These results are generated using Gemini/Google AI. Note how the hole size of 30-50cm only applies to the direct entry. And skin is peeled to 80-150cm area.
Now let’s look at his graphic. Notice any discrepancy?
He states calculated hole size is only 18cm. This is wrong by a factor of around 2.
He states the calculated peel radius is 30-50cm. This is wrong by a factor of 3.
So once again…he has fed the AI prompts until it gave him an output to support his point. Or he just straight up misinterpreted his AI output which shouldn’t be surprising considering he thinks B-25 can survive 6 hits of 105mm.
The damage models in warthunder are already more detailed than most games, there’s no need to fix this problem by redoing hundreds of airplane models.
The main problem here seems to me armor rating; they raised it sky high to favour armor piercing over high explosive, but armor in warthunder negates all damage below a pressure threshould so that renders missile warheads useless since the damage is contained to a very small volume.
Reducing the threshold just swings the pendulum in the other direction, so maybe we could have a mechanic were threshold depends on the size of the overall blast, so small explosive mass inside he rounds need higher overpressure to do damage than a larger missile warhead.
They definitely have backed themselves into a corner by neglecting plane damage models for so long. Another issue is that they can’t do much make pilot sniping bombers easier without also making it way too easy to kill fighter pilots.
It should be possible to find a good compromise between bombers being too tanky and having 20mm shells break the bomber clean in half.
1 Like
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, I WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF TYPING IT ALL OUT FOR YOU AND NOW YOU’VE GONE AND SHOVED IT IN AN AI YOURSELF!
Now tell me this, which aircraft skin was used, which aluminum type at what thickness, what was the direct TNT equivalent for calculations.
“Aircraft skin” is a horrible metric, it could be plywood on a yak, it could be 0.6mm alclad on a spitfire, it could be 2mm 2024-T3 On a B17, or 4mm of that same stuff on a b29, you utter and complete fool, you bash us for using AI, but the second you use it yourself you use it completely wrong. Like hitting a screw with a hammer, you’ve proven that you are incompetent with the tools given to you.
That looks like chatGPT, it probably used those british firing trials on 0.6mm alclad skinned blenheims that you kept spamming
AI is only as good as the prompts you give it, you could also use Quorrum, an app I told grok to make, where an entire council of AIs, GPT, Gemini, Claude, and Grok that you link your API keys to, deliberate and debate eachother until you have the absolute most concise answer. https://hds-45nr6zn6jb2p-6014-h672l.grok-code-wild.hades-www.grok-sandbox.com
Lol, there isn’t a single hole in the videos I shared that matches the diagram you sent
I hope you won’t call this misinformation either.
1 Like
Its funny cause the holes in that b17 from the mk108 110g2 match perfectly to my diagram
1 Like
I was going to write exactly the same thing.
1 Like
You can also see the damage that 20mm HE rounds inflict on engines They are causing damage at the levels we predicted.
Hahahahahahhahah! Holy christ this generation is cooked.
Maybe you should have your AI analyze the post and figure out which AI calculated the figures.
People over 65 who are don’t familiar with technology find it difficult to understand this.
This is my favorite animation btw I had so much fun watching it.
The damage models are just health point systems. You can dive 500mph with a blackened wing and pull out of it no problem. Sims from 20 years ago knew that was crap and made it where structure limits were dynamic.
Another issue is that they made incendiary completely worthless and a “dead” round. Incendiary doesn’t even penetrate.
Only to the extent if you believe if every bomber was homogenous in material construction.
1 Like
“If yer jus pull urself up by ur bootstrapss n work hard u can buy a hoose”
Im in entire facebook groups where we pretend to be boomers/gen x just to make fun of them
1 Like
Guys, I think we need to end this topic now because we can’t make any progress.
My equation was specifically tuned for 2 mm 2024-T3 aircraft skin, and ONLY the skin, because as soon as we introduce the underlying airframe and spars and all that crap theres too many variables for a coherant result, the size would change based on wether a shell landed even near a rib or not, so I went worst case, unsupported straight plate of 2 mm 2024-T3 aircraft skin.
1 Like