Mfw I take severe damage in a plane that requires extreme trim by default and the plane just flops out instantly
Yeah, that’s kindda what “severe damage” implies
What should be done is to improve cannon damage, differentiating between blast and fragmentation damage depending on their explosive charge and metal mass. High-explosive (HE) damage should be more concentrated, while fragmentation damage is less but more widespread. Aircraft should also experience greater handling problems when damaged, losing speed and mobility.
In short, heavier and more robust aircraft should withstand more punishment, while lighter ones would be more vulnerable to damage, requiring more or fewer hits depending on the type of ammunition. High-explosive ammunition would cause severe, concentrated damage, while ammunition with less explosive charge and more metal would cause shrapnel damage that would accumulate and degrade the aircraft’s performance to the point of making it unflyable. Damage from AP, APHE, and SAPI ammunition should also be better represented, as these can severely damage vital internal modules in many cases.
2 Likes
Bombers needed those survivability improvement because of how Damage model is done in the game,…
Fighters are currently fine.
im sick of a single russian dshk tracer blowing my plane in half. or a single american .50 API-T torching a whole plane after a hit in a wingtip. Or when a HVAP from a praga or sub i ii making a plane fall apart like i dropped a lego death star
meanwhile hispano 20mm is a roll of a D20 for if its going to damage or spark.
Theres some notably hardy fighters and bombers like mosquito, hurricane and thunderbolt that simply dont hold up how they ought
2 Likes
Regina
I don’t know what other people want, but I would like fighter survivability to be looked at, but not necessarily make them tanky? Like it feels way too easy to shred wings and tails off in entirety, instead I think it should be ‘less common’ outside of big rounds/many rounds, but hitting a fighter with a cannon causes damage that significantly damages the flight model that it falls out of the sky regardless? Instead of .50 cals shearing wings off completely. That doesn’t seem right to me. Though as mentioned, fighters I don’t want to be particularly tanky either, just not literally disassemble in air from machine gun fire.
2 Likes
Yes, absolutely.
Definitely more fun that what you’re advocating we stick to which is this:
Also this:
Don’t forget this:
Just for fun a bit of this.
I can just keep going and going and going.
You’re complaining about someone having to give a solid burst into a P-38 with possibly the weakest cannons of WW2 as if that is a bad thing, whilst defending the current system where 2x Breda’s can shred historically strong aircraft in small bursts and the aforementioned historically very weak Shvak can rip a 190’s tail off in as little as 1-2 rounds. The current situation is completely stupid and promotes point and click gameplay, it’s always fun thinking you’re about to have a great fight with someone and then THUNK “tail cut loose” by someone who just grazed you using .303’s of all things.
When World of Warplanes and even Call of Duty of all things have more realistic damage than War Thunder we have a problem.
3 Likes
when bombers are actually playable then sure.
Haha, out of curiosity I swiped into Google’s AI how many hits a Shvak needed to shoot down another fighter, and it said around 15 to 20 hits were required. I actually believe that because of the small explosive payload and the not-so-good armor-piercing ammunition, although the fact that it had a better muzzle velocity and rate of fire would make it easier to land those 20 hits. Besides that, I think the Soviet planes’ better mobility, good energy retention, acceleration, and low-altitude speed would greatly help them keep an enemy in their sights long enough to land those 20 hits, while the Germans, with their boom-and-zoom system, had a limited time to land hits before having to try another pass. That’s why I think the Germans partly developed mine shells, because in those kinds of attacks you need to do as much damage as possible in a very short time.
1 Like
If you talk on structural side, yes.
Because for example, pilots are way too tanky, you have them survive multiple 7.5mm rounds, maybe more of an issue in the fact they aren’t “modular” (no headshots) and it wouldn’t be fun a grazed pinky toe would cause your death
But we can’t just crank hp up, explosive shells would just be “absorbed” into the plane.
You could land an explosive round on top of an engine and recieve just a orange section, no leak, no lost power, nothing.
Just port the 15mm mg151 damage, crank it up a little bit for the 20mm and leave it be.
If your plane has a armor all round it will be incredibly tanky, if it doesn’t then your pilot is super vulnerable and you would feel it a lot.
2 Likes
You want to see how damage models should be check out IL2 Korea, a small burst of 50 cals may not shear a wing off but it will kill the pilot or destroy the flight surfaces and engine.
With mouse aim we have far more accuracy.
2 Likes
It should be noted that IL-2 Korea has too much damage according to the people that want “realistic damage”.
This is from the other thread.
Trying to pin down exactly what these people want is a constantly shifting goalpost and there is not a single sim game out there who’s damage system is realistic enough for them.
This is an example of ShVAK + Berezin damage in Il-2. The Yak-9P in that game has the same armament as Yak-3 in this one.
M2 .50 cals are also not far behind. Getting a lethal fire in a few shots is readily possible in Il-2 Korea.
Neither of these would satisfy the over-defined realism requirements that some players have been advocating for. So the current damage is too much…but they also damage in other games is too much…and they can’t clearly define where they want it to be.
The later is far more fun than the former.
Why was there a massive outrage when realshatter was first implemented? Why was there one when fixing a missile bug somehow reduced HE damage to basically nothing?
My ShVAK clip is from even further before that and before the very first ShVAK buff that made it so 5-15 rounds would consistently bring down fighters.
They should get a survivability buff proportional to the bomber buff, scaled to the size and robustness of the airframe. It would be absurd if just because the tag says “fighter” it automatically becomes less durable. Don’t forget that a heavy fighter like the P-61 is as big as a B-25.
The current amount of cannon damage has gone through multiple different iterations. The “middle ground” would have been 3 years ago before realshatter was implemented.
Except this whole thread is from when the game was at the middle ground and this thread is before MG.151 received realshatter mechanic; it was one of the last cannons in the game to receive it. This thread originated from a time when a lot of people found MG.151 HE to be amongst the least consistent in the game.
This thread is from basically the first time that realshatter was somewhat fixed and fragmentation damage was increased.
Tim’s Variety has a decent realshatter 1.0 comparison using the games damage analysis mode of before and after first iteration of realshatter.
I made my vote but I don’t feel strongly one way or the other. However, there are a couple points of improvement that really annoy the crap out of me.
I’m in an air battle and I get my tail shot off. I respawn and get my tail shot off. I respawn and get my tail shot off. I respawn and get my tail shot off. I am not complaining about getting shot down. Each of those losses, my opponent beat me fair and square. WHY THE HELL DOES IT (almost) ALWAYS HAVE TO BE MY TAIL SHOT OFF!?!?!??!!?!?!? I have lost more tails in War Thunder than all airplanes in WWII, Korea and the Middle East who lost their tails! Okay, sometimes, rarely, it is a pilot snipe or maybe losing a wing. Sometimes it is an engine hit. But 4 out of 5 times I lose my tail. Physically gone! WTF, Over?
Finally, I have a very badly damaged airplane and successfully made it back to the airfield environment. Maybe I get my gear down, maybe only 1, maybe I have to make a no flap landing. Just as I am turning base to short final, everything disappears and I get a message that I have been destroyed by severe damage! Wait, I still had my bird under control. Things were looking good for a safe landing. Fire’s been out for a while and nothing else broke but suddenly decreed DEAD! I would understand if the remaining half wing on my left sheared off the rest of the way. I would understand if I bounced the landing and flipped. I would understand if the fire spread to the fuel tank and the self-sealing liner failed. But this insta-death inside of a mile of the runway is utter crap!
4 Likes
That’s to be expected when aircraft destruction physics are far too rudimentary. Sections always cut off along the exact same three preset lines, with the same damage textures, all run by the same binary behavior of going from “intact” to “cut off” from one frame to the next. There are no intermediate states or progressive damage to make you feel like your plane is actually being torn to shreds. In IL-2 Sturmovik, at least you could watch how a weakened wing gradually give way and bend under stress before finally breaking.
3 Likes
all really want is one 20 mm not cut the tail clean off cause thats very unrealistic i think each part of the plane should only snap off after like 3-5 rounds of 20mm cannon probably
2 Likes
and honestly i would be fine with real shatter getting nerfed but you have to do it evenly the problem there is EVERYONE HAS IT except germany which is unfair then it was added to one SPAA in russia and everyone lost there minds for fair reason too.
but also Props are just SUPER under modeled aswell