Real shatter 1.0.....2.0....3.0?

Game Discussion General Discussion
,
450

Both solutions are unacceptable.

  1. Accuracy is a property of the person using the weapons, precision is the property of the weapon. So youneither want the instructor to get worse(the user of the guns) or the weapon to get less precise.
    Tuning the instructor is at least reasonable but very well might not be an option due to the way the instructor works.
    Making the weapons less precise is a no go, since the precision of the weapons is a global variable and it would affect the weapons in all modes, even SB where you actually do have realistic hit percentages.

So screwing over the most realistic mode to make RB “feel” more realistic is just a dumb idea. If people want the hit percentages to resemble ww2 they should play SB, it’s way more realistic anyway.

  1. The damage model also is global, so we are in the same Situation were you completely ruin the realistic time to kill in SB for a more realistic “feel” in RB. Without actually making RB more realistic.

The most reasonable approach is just to accept tge increased efficiency of the weapons in RB due to mouse aim. I mean you already accept the suspension of disbelief that plane controlled by mouse aim is in any way realistic, so why not accept the increased efficiency as well? I mean it is the result of mouse aim, so basically the same thing.

Just go “it’s played with mouse aim of course it won’t be like the real war”. Definately the most sane approach.

Btw Bombers were not much more resistant than fighters. A bit maybe but not as much as you think. Read the study tgey did test the b25 as well. And 20hits of 20mm on average kills a b25 (easy to calculate giving the formulas in the research paper).
And this is without cumulative damage!!! So hitting the same part twice is much more effective and the real average number of hits when hits strike the same area.several times and already damaged parts are being hit is obviously way lower.

There is also the 1-hit kill probability, which you can easily test. I bet (since i already tested it) that you will not down a b-25 with a single 20mm anm2 hei round at the same rate the research suggests is realistic. Bombers in game are already too durable.

Balance should be achieved by the modifkators and via mouse aim. Not the flight or damage model.
Sim exists and takes precedent. You wnaat more durable planes play sim… Simple as that the option exists already, it’s on you to not take it.

2 Likes
451

The problem with the whole “its realistic” is that warthunder is not a realistic game. Sure, it has realistic elements, but for a game to be fun, it must be balanced. And that’s not to say that their cant be realism, such as mineshells doing more damage because of the sacrifices to their design, but that they must come before the alter of gameplay.

Sim exists and takes precedent.

Sim absolutely does not take precedent, and why should it? The vast majority of this game’s population plays arcade and realistic. This is an air RB thread. Should their opinions not be valued because a small subsect of the player base insists that damage is fine for their mode, when they have far better games to turn too?

And you aren’t even reading the report right. You cite an 11% chance for a kill if a 20mm strikes a P-47, without disclosing the fact that those are the statistics for a “B” kill, which is where the aircraft goes down sometime after the cannon strike, rather then the A kill, where the aircraft is destroyed immediately,(And is the only statistic that matters in air RB). Or the fact that its not a shavak FI-T round, but rather M-97 HEI, which has almost twice the explosive power and about 50% greater muzzle energy. An M-97 shell only has a 7.5% chance of destroying a P-47 with an “A” kill according to the report from the front, where all the important bits are on a P-47, which should tell you plenty, given that this is the most critical weak spot on a p47, where fragments will hit the pilot, the fuel, and the engine
image

And on the B-25 topic. it lists the chance of an “A” kill from 20mm hits is not with a single shell, but rather a burst of hits that kill either both engines or both pilots immediately.
image
And the probability that a burst will cause an “A” kill with M97 HE is between 7-8%
image

And the B-25 as an aircraft was manufactured in 1939, when heavy armament on an aircraft consisted of .50 cal machine guns, or the far weaker (In comparison to the M3 20mm used in the test) Oerlikon cannon. This report was done postwar, when aircraft armament was far more powerful then was an aircraft like the B-25 could have never expected to see when it was designed and initially manufactured . Larger Bombers, like the B-29, are in a whole different weight class of survivability due to their size and superior construction.

2 Likes
452

and your claims don’t hold up to logic either. why would countries like Germany, Japan, and the USSR invest in developing heavy, difficult-to-aim, large-caliber cannons when according to your logic and reading of the report 20mm cannons should rip apart heavy bombers with a short burst just fine?

1 Like
453

In terms of realism it of course takes precedent. Increasing the perceived realism in a medium realism gamemode that decreases the realism in the most realistic mode is an oxymoron.

In terms of realism sim of course takes precedent.

454

Read the entire paper again

The burst gives the burst calculation and how much damage n hits do.

If a single hit does not have a chance to kill the b25 then n hits won’t either since it doesn’t take cumulative damage into account. Both the formula and the text state this outright. Learn math.

455

I’m not talking about realism. I’m talking about gameplay balance. Why should the air Arcade and Realistic communities be riding the wave of changes that the far smaller sim community makes. Should it not be the other way around?

1 Like
456

If it did not take cumulative damage into account, why specify that its a burst? if cumulative damage was not accounted for, it would be specified that this is a single shell, like with the P-47. You should learn to read.

457

Gaijin prefers realism not balance.

And the measure of realism is im not RB.
Also DMs and weapon damage are global so they need to fit every mode at the samte time.

It is idiotic to think you can balance all modes at the same time using those global properties if every kode has different demands.

Gaijins approach is much smarter, make those global values realistic (if possoible) and balance via the game mode specific assitlsts, and properties.

458

but that’s the problem, is that these values are not realistic.
image
A single M-97 HEI shell blew off his wing at the midpoint, in a plane where the wing spars are made of steel. This is a fairly common occurrence with the M97 shell.

1 Like
459

also the paper specifies that the burst length was 10 shells

1 Like
460

It specifies how burst of n hits are calculated in that section. It even gives the formula which shows the specifics.

Take your time read it again and check the math. The only probaility used it the one for a one hit kill

Yeah but they also give the formula to calculate it for every n number of hits. Again page 42 it’s hard to miss.

So they calculated it for 10 if you use the one hit kill probabilities you can even verify that they used the formula for that. It’s not hard to do.

You even posted the graph of the one hit kill probabilities on the b25 the numbers are given via table. As stated before it’s not hard math.

2 Likes
461

Again, we are not talking about the B-25, we are talking about the B-29, which ingame takes a similar amout of shells as the B-25 to get an A kill.

462

What we need isnt tougher damage models, but more complex ones.

image
image1200×800 159 KB

Do you see how much stuff is in a B-29 that simply is not there? Wing and fuselage ribs need to be modeled, along with fuselage spars. Turbosuperchargers, floorboards, bulkheads, all this stuff is needed to more accurately model damage. If they cant model that, then what we need is for damage models to be far more segmented.
shot 2023.12.25 12.09.38
shot 2023.12.25 12.09.381920×1080 241 KB

A hit to the front of the tail sections turns it all black. How on earth does that make sense when most of the shrapnel is carried forward by the round’s velocity? That’s the big problem with realistic damage, we don’t have realistic models.

3 Likes
463

Another major problem is the underperformance of incendiary ammunition. Currently there is no reason to take a belt of incendiary ammunition simply because high explosive is so effective, when the study shows that in particular, incendiary shells were more effective against larger targets then HE.

2 Likes
464

I agree that more complex damage model would be a good thing. It shouldn’t increase the overall survivability though.

Since the paper does show that bombers like the b25 are already tougher than their real world counterpart.
Again they are on par with the research about non-cumulatove damage even though they take cumulative damage in game.

B-29s might be tougher than a b25 but not by a huge margin it turned out survivability wasn’t really good on bombers or fighters IRL.

You also miss that gaijin models B kills as A kills, something i do not agree with but it was a measure to stop killstealing, as shot up controls were common in2013 but then dissappeared and were replaced by the wing ripping off.
This btw was a decision made for arcade but RB and SB suffer the concequences as well. Gaijin has since stopped with balancing in this stupid way, but this relic remained.

I like how you moved away from your silly positions like a single hit kill wouldn’t exist on a b25 and so on. Maybe on further inspection you did realize what the study actually said. I was prepared to go through the entire calculation for you, but it seema you did do it yourself. Congratulations, most are to stubborn to do this.

465

I think its important to note however that M97 HEI was probably one of the hardest hitting rounds around at the time, being closer to 23 x 115 in terms of muzzle energy and explosive power.

NS-23 FI-T: 16.94g of TNT, 120.75 joules of muzzle energy

M3 HEFI (M-97): 12.41g of TNT, 108.16 joules of muzzle energy

Hispano Mk II/V HEFI : 9.28g of TNT, 110.89 joules of muzzle energy

ShVAK FI-T: 6.36g of TNT, 72 joules of muzzle energy

Ho-5 HEFI: 7.25g of TNT, 63.375 joules of muzzle energy

Just a fairly interesting observation I had. Another thing to consider is that the M97 shell had a much better aerodynamic profile then post of these shells, so it retains its energy for longer

466

Something that can also be done to bombers along with more complex damage models is instead of making them tankier, make them more dangerous to approach by improving their defensive firepower’s potential range and precision. A good example of this would be the Village Inn system on the Lincoln:

shot 2023.12.25 14.20.12
shot 2023.12.25 14.20.121920×1080 382 KB

That small bulb housed a gun laying and ranging radar that allowed the gunner to shoot targets farther away and with better accuracy. Another addition that could be made are the fire control systems for bombers like the B-29, TU-4, IL-28, Be-6, etc. ( I’m not too sure how remote turrets worked on aircraft like the 288, I don’t know if they had ballistic calculators). this would make bombers more difficult to approach, but the tradeoff is that bomber damage models are brought into line with the data provided by the report .This would also help to level the playing field with mouse aim. I’m working on a suggestion right now but I still have to finish the research and write up.

3 Likes
467

No, just no no no.

They are already ridiculously deadly. Again maybe not if you are a mouse aimer going against them but they far outclass their real world counter part.

Your ideas aren’t really thought through since you only come from one angle but don’t have the entirety of WT in mind.

Bombers are an interesting topic since their Performance varies so much regarding what you play.
They need a complete overhaul, changing precision would make the gund unrealistic, since precision is aechanical property of the gun, what can be changed is accuracy as that is influenced by the control method which can indeed vary from mode to mode.
That’s a possible angle to adress the issues. However bombers are special since their stupid 3rd person hive mind gunners are somehow bound to the vehicle not the mode and cannot be changed without fundamentally overhauling them. But yeah this is at least the right way of thinking

2 Likes
468

Which would be useful information if there isn’t an error in the way HEI rounds work in WT. As easily visible in the protection analysis explosive rounds for some reason only gaijin understands lose all their momentum at the moment the explosives go off. You can see that by the fact that all fragments expand to all directions at the same speed (relative to the target) after detonation. In reality the speed vector of the round relative to the target schould be added to the fragments as they carry the momentum from vbeing part of the round. But in WT that doesn’t happen.
So the kinetic energy is lost as soon as the round detonates… Because gaijin is too lazy to add two vectors together.

469

I’m fairly certain that the whole point of realshatter was realistic fragmentation on cannons. If you look on protection analysis, most of the fragments from the shell fan out in a roughly 60 degree cone from the point of impact.