Yippeee
Anyway, now that this thread is nearly 2k messages long, do you think gaijin will actually read through this message by message or are they going to just summarize with AI or flat out ignore it lmfao
1 Like
I also think we should stop talking about the B-17’s resistance against guided missiles as if that were the right scale to measure its damage model. At the BR it’s placed in, it won’t be facing anything that big. If it works fine against typical calibers, who cares if it can survive a nuclear bomb. What if there was a bug in the damage values causing some discrepancies. it’s Gaijin code after all
1 Like
Textbook example of survivorship bias. This is the product of a collision.
Generally speaking aircraft collisions are fatal.
You can go look up the collision between the P-63 and B-17 at the Dallas airshow. It completely deleted the tail and everyone involved died. This was an extremely low speed collision as well.
The BF110 chops the B-17’s wing off way too fast now. The IRL combat footage didn’t even show the gun capable of doing it from the rear of the airframe.
WW2: B-17 Flying Fortress Takes Fire From a Bf 110 | 4k, 60fps, Colorized, Sound Design, AI Enhanced
I would maybe also say that the damage model needs to be able to be destroyed, in the sense of that it gets destroyed the more that it is hit in specific spots. That if you for example were constantly shooting into the same spot, you would more or less dig a hole in the the damage model.
Because from what have know and have seen, if you damage the flaps, such that they are destroyed, their damage model is still there. Which i think were one of the reason why the damaged didn’t really transfer over into the wing structure after the flaps were destroyed in the video of this post:
For visualisation, this is how I interpret how the damage model works in regards to shooting the rear of the wing into the flaps with HE rounds. And how by the damage model getting smaller/destroyed, it could fix it.
First you start of with the wing section, with the flaps and the solid lighter blue, being the airframe in the wing:
If you shoot into the rear of the wing with HE, it penetrates a bit, and then explodes:
This causes the flap to be damaged:
If you shoot into the flap again, it penetrates a bit, and then explodes:
That would in the end cause the flap to be destroyed, which shows as black on the damage model ingame:
From my understanding, even if it is black, and visually it is gone, the flap is still part of the damage model. So if you shoot another HE shell into what you think is the rear part of the actual wing, you hit the dead flaps instead, and it explodes in the flap, which will continue to happen:
.
What would maybe fix it, would be after it gets destroyed, it is actually not an actual part of the damage model anymore:
So if you shot a HE into the wing, it would instead hit the rear of the actual wing and then detonate in the wing:
This would then cause damage to the actual wing instead of the HE detonating in the dead flap and doing no damage. This would be something that could be added on top of more damage sections for bombers:
With the current damage model on the dev server, the problem feels as if damage doesn’t really accumulate if you shoot into the bombers with too small of a cannon, which includes the 20mm cannons. Only when you get up to the big ones, like 30mm, does it feel as if they actually take damage.
Of cause, something like a .50 cal should do no or nearly no damage to the skin of an aircraft, since it punches right through. But a 20mm HE exploding on the skin of an aircraft needs to do some damage.
The biggest problem is just how much damage does each round need to do to different things. The amount of damage they do on the live server is too much, I think nearly all can agree on this.
While the amount of damage they do on the dev server can be too little, adequate or still too much, which is what people are arguing about.
A single shot from a .50 cal should not break the tail of a big bomber, however the same spot of a wing section should at the same time not be able to absorb the entire 200 rounds of 20mm from something of a Bf 109 F-4.
So it is very much about finding that healthy balance, for both bombers and the things shooting at bombers.
3 Likes
I don’t think there is a bug, I believe all they did is increase the structural health of bombers by a certain percentage across the board. The spars probably got a seperate buff on top of that structural buff.
The tail section still is the most vulnerable spot (ignoring the pilots), but they increased the integrity by such a large value that only something like a Sidewinder hitting a specific spot can sever the tail in one hit.
A few good hits with 30mms also can still sever the tail, but from what I can tell, you have to be attacking from the side.
As I’ve already mentioned before, I think they went overboard with the buffs and didn’t do anything to increase damage dealt by certain weapons or fire.
Since the structure is so incredibly durable on the dev server right now, most missiles can’t deal meaningful damage due to three reasons:
- The missile warheads are badly modelled overall (they use SAPHE logic in-game apparently)
- The planes are divided into very few, large sections that have way too much health
- The fuse distance results in the bombers only being hit by fragments most of the time with flaps absorbing most of the damage
1 Like
Here you have AGM-12B hitting the B-29s. With their 58kg TNTe, they do oneshot the B-29. The amount of explosive is the same as a 250lb bomb:
And in a total of 8 days bruh, are there any other topics that receive this many messages in a week, or does anyone know of any?
1 Like
It’s sounding more and more like if you smack something directly with a big BOOM that you’re going to blow it apart. But most missiles proxy and so it’s less blowing the whole thing into pieces and instead just shredding everything it can until it cant even fly or everyone is dead.
Can we just stop dismissing everything under the catch-all excuse of “That’s survivorship bias!!”
A good damage model should be able to reproduce even statistically atypical outcomes. If in reality only 2% of B-17s survived severe tail damage, but in the game 100% of them go down from that same damage, then the model is objectively not representative of reality.
Yeah, that is true and a good idea if they can actually do it
Percussion was using an IRL source where they fired an early Falcon into a surplus B-17 as a basis for comparing the damage model to what its like in-game
Which Is in part why I think its a typically used example at the moment.
Though I do agree. Im not that worried that ARH missiles seem to interact wierdly with the damage models, but would like to see IR missiles go for the engines and not the tail in regard to something like the Firestreak or Red Top, among others
2 Likes
A good damage model should reproduce statistically atypical outcomes at their historically atypical rate. Currently you can smash a plane into the tail of a B-17 and it will do nothing. This is not realistic and this is not a good damage model.
2 Likes
Keep on dreaming, buddy
This is WT, we can’t expect that much depth from Gaijin
Yeah… unfortunately… Still gunna have ASRAAMs go for centre mass based upon thurst output and not heat signatures, and be 1 flare defeated :D
2 Likes
What do you mean, something like helicopters which uses a turbine engine have no heat signature to lock onto?
1 Like
Clearly a marketing lie
Next thing you’ll tell me that IR missiles should have an easier time locking onto heat signatures in cold weather or that fog shouldn’t entirely mask IR signatures