The Re.2005 VDM situation is crazy

Machinery of War Discussion Aircraft
,
365

There is only one anecdote about reaching 720km/h and that is 720km/h indicated air speed at around 7000m…which would be equivalent to 1050 km/h true air speed with a standard airspeed indicator. Even if we are generous and say that the 720km/h is true air speed then it would still place the Re.2005 as significantly faster than every fighter aircraft that was developed prior to very late 1944…and all done in the very early part of 1943.

Just for reference, a 720 km/h speed at the same altitude would put it 80 km/h faster than a Bf.109G model with the exact same engine and boost settings. This is while having a significantly larger wing area.

In practice, the modeling of the Re.2005 is probably erroneous. It’s turn performance should probably be closer to a Ki-84 or a Griffon Spitfire than a Merlin Spitfire which is the way it is currently modeled.

2 Likes
366

Basically for f.e. 20% more power you would probably get somewhere around 4,5% difference in speed for most WW2 aircraft, basically square root of the difference in power (because drag is not linear and with speed the propeller efficiency drops). We may assume VDM propeller is more efficient, still we are quite a long way from 720km/h, especially since this engine starts dropping power at lower alt.
Unless they did some really creative tuning (Fastcist and Führerious 1943), we should assume current engine performance is best case scenario.
Now, even with worse high alt performance, VDM being no faster than regular Re.2005 is rather weird.

Edit: fixed the numbers according closer the actual difference between Serie 0 and VDM.
The 1900m between best speed alt may be indeed quite substantial when I think of it.

2 Likes
367

Current belt modifications should be replaced with custom made belts. That way you can make your own full HE belts in every plane so you dont get guns like anm2s that get full HE stealth belts vs hispano mk5s that are stuck with 50% HE belts on their best belts. Damage buff was a huge step in the right direction but obviously, as always, there is still alot of work to be done. Yes yak-3u and LF are both broken and their brs should be increased. Having their guns do no damage would only make the situation worse for everyone since 1) statistics would not go up so gaijin wouldnt up their br and 2) would just make them insufferable to fly.

As for VDM, its perfectly fine at 6.0, it gets a really big boost in performance (~23% extra hp on the deck) vs the standard re2005, plane which should infact drop in br to like 5.0-ish.

368

And where does this specific idea come from?
Who wants this to happen?

369

everyone that actually plays all the nations in the game and doesnt get upset when their favorite nation isnt the only one with fucntioning guns.

370

No, tell me who wants the guns to deal no damage. Would be nice if you could provide a quote proving this, that I wanted “no damage” or even “barely any damage” or anything like that.
Because you and Feet are the only ones repeating this absolute made up stuff.

I have repeatedly stated - 20mm cannons should differ from one another. There should be a big difference between 37mm and 25mm. There should be a big difference between Shvak and MG151/20. No 20mm should remove wings or crippling.planes aerodynamically in a single hit. Current situation of Yaks pushing head-ons vs Wyverns is pure pathology. But they are doing this because they have to hit once, Yak is small (+plywood bug 2.0) Wyvern is big, and Gaijin can’t be bothered to properly adjust SAPI performance to at least partially match the reality).

MG151/20 was needing 3-6 shells to rip a wing off for the last several years and now I’m hearing that’ was “no damage”. Seriously, what?
6 Shvak HE hits (assuming MG151/20 would need 4 hits per wing, and Shvak is noticeably weaker, still stronger than it should be regarding aerodynamic/structural dmg but whatever, I guess we can’t have structural vs aerodynamic vs engine/fuel properly modelled, so some simplification has to happen) with 2 Shvaks at 750 round per minute is basically 0,16s on target best case (1st pair of shells impacts at 0, 2nd at 0,08, 3rd at 0,16s), avg 0,20s if we assume we start our time on target randomly between 0 and 0,08.

Edit: this discussion belongs in a separate topic, I’ll probably write something up tomorrow so you can misinterpret it and make outlandish claims about it.

Edit2:

Well, we have Real Sh*tter 3.0 for like what, 2,5 years? Honestly, coukdn’t remember, had to check the forums. And in the meantime we received: 4.0 Yak-3, which is by far the best 4.0 plane in game, though it can be kinda countered using Ki-44-II, but Ki-44II is by far the best 3.7 so there’s that, normal Yak-3 hasn’t moved Yak-3U hasn’t moved, Yak-3VK hasn’t moved and BI hasn’t moved and these planes went from “tough opponent” to “absolute menace”, and BI went from “absolute menace” to “game breaking OP”.
Spitfire Mk IX LF also got a lot better but Hispanos still suffer from absolutely horrible belt composition (SAPI should be noticeably better than it currently is, but you can’t explain to Gaijin that low explosive incendiary is still explosive).
So clearly counting on BR changes is not really reasonable at this point.

1 Like
371

Having all weapons one-shotting everything breaks balance and historical accuracy which this game still chases despite its arcadey nature (arcade/RB gameplay). When a new vehicle or weapon is added the devs still use as much realistic data as they can and bug fixes with aircraft performance etc can only be made with the correct documentation.

In reality some guns/ammo did more damage than others. The MG-151’s and Hispano cannons were known for the damage they caused whilst the Shvak was most definitely not. The .303 machine guns on Hurricanes and Spitfires were adequate for shooting down fighters but were widely known for being a touch anaemic to reliably bring down bombers in a timely fashion.

The reason I’m mentioning this is because with realistic damage the game would be massively improved. As it stands right now we have Shvak’s that can one-tap wings clean off, Breda .50 cals that can single burst saw wings off and as for the .303’s I’m uploading a video tonight if I can of my Hurricane ripping complete tail units off of tough aircraft like Corsairs in a single short burst. It sucks all immersion out of the game and makes certain weapons/aircraft redundant.

Why on earth would I fly an aircraft known for being rugged like a P-47, Corsair, 190A or Hurricane when machine guns rip my tail off in a snap shot?

Why would I bring 30mm cannons to bomber hunt when 20mm’s eviscerate everything? (Fun fact Breda .50 cals can rip bomber wings off in one pass too).

Finally what about bomber pilots? The poor bastards are flying a slow, usually barely manoeuvrable aircraft that is at the moment completely dissected by even small machine guns. I dunno why the Germans or Italians bothered with fitting cannons to their aircraft they should’ve just sent a bunch of G.50’s to intercept those B-17’s and called it a day according to War Thunder. If you think this is painful in RB try playing Sim where you’ve spent a few minutes just getting to altitude to have your tail ripped off instantly by a Yak-3.

My final point as this comment is already large enough. If you’re happy with guns all basically doing the same damage and aircraft construction being meaningless then why not get rid of different flight dynamics all together? Why don’t we make P-51’s turn on a penny like a Zero. It’d make the game far more playable much like gun damage at the moment.

5 Likes
372

It has 3 MG151s that have become absolute killing machines after the last update. Wasn’t this what you wanted? What we all wanted? Actual damage for cannons instead of constant hits and crits?

We finally get real damage back after 3 years and you’re complaining. I don’t get it.

1 Like
373

3 MG151/20 were ALWAYS enough. I never had any trouble killing people with 1-2 MG151/20 anyway. (Edit: with exception of plywood bug affected aircraft)
The armanent was never the problem of Re.2005.
The problem is 3 MG151/20, 3xMK108 or 1 Shvak is essentialy all the same in terms of killing power.
There’s 0 advantage to having more guns, because you need a single HE hit to end the fight.

There’s no advantage in increasing firepower, the only differences in cannons are:

  • belt composition (MG151/20 has the worst)
  • ballistics (MG151/20 is the worst and by a large margin despite 0 reason for it to be so, Ho-5 should be worse, Shvak should have worse ballistics than MG151/20 AP, IT and FI-T)
  • ROF (MG151/20 is OK-ish here)

Also, it applies to other planes and weapons, there’s 0 reason for La-9 to even exist, since 4x23mm gives 0 advantage over 2 Shvaks anyway, unless you are bomber hunting.
30mm on Fw 190 D12 is absolutely useless, basically 2xMG151/20 is already 1-clicking everything if you manage to get the right shell in belt.
There’s 0 advantage to P-47’s size, because it dies to single hit anyway.
There’s 0 advantage to AD-4 having 4x20mm vs AD-2 having 2, as these 2 insta-delete people anyway.
Etc. Etc.

In other words - in current WT no matter your size, if you are single-engine plane, your durability is same as if you were a biplane, you die to 1-2 hits.
No matter your armanent, as long as it’s 20mm HE, everything dies in 1-2 hits anyway, which means almost every shot is lethal or at least crippling. Hence Pay2winnin’s Yak-3 is current meta, because with a single Shvak no one is surviving your 1st pass as long as you hit anything.
No consistent gunnery needed. No time on target needed.
I’m not asking for realistic guns, because forum crybabies would not survive this one.
I’m asking for guns to require a few hits to kill, just like MG151/20 did before Real Shatter 3.0, some a bit more some a bit less but seriously, hitting Fw 190 wing with 6 Shvak shells is not some great feat, it’s something people have been doing for years, because long time ago, pre real-sh*tter Shvak was on par with MG151/20 damage wise for a while and people were talking about how strong MG151/20 is, actually they were talking how it was too strong (and they were right, as some.planes were sometimes losing wings after as few as 2-3 hits!).
And now in 2025 the good old “too damn strong” is power crept to “no damage at all” among 0 attention span playerbase.

Are you the youtube guy? :p

3 Likes
374

More guns = higher density of fire = you are much more likely to hit the enemy, or multi-hit to guarantee damage.

Yes 151s and shvaks do similar damage right now, but that’s ok since the latter usually have less ammo.

I don’t see any issue with cannons doing good damage in general as that makes the gameplay far more enjoyable for anyone who can actually hit anything.

We have JUST left the dark era of .50 cals being the only relevant guns for planes, and you are already against it? Are you really arguing in good faith?

375

Again, I don’t wanna be rude, but for the holy snail’s sake: can you move the argument here German 20mm HEI(minengeschoß) shells low damage compared to other 20mm guns
Or Idk somewhere where you can focus on the various gun damage.

THIS IS NOT THE PLACE TO DO IT.
Gun balance is extremely important for the game and I’d love to see some research put into it to see what was the real impact of various rounds, but again this is not the place to do it.
Here we discuss the Re2005 VDM performance and in game implementation.

The same goes for @B17FlyngFortress and whoever might want to answer Loofah comments on gun performance and game balance, please do it in another thread.

7 Likes
376

Nah, you have a point. I’m generally complaining about weapon design and I think Re.2005 falls victim to it because it’s carrying relatively heavy weaponary yet still gets effectively outgunned by 4.0 Pay2winnin’s Yak-3.
I have posted my response to @Liniyka in the M-geschoss topic, but I guess a separate one could work.

Anyway, I’m just happy that at least now Re.2005 has good acceleration and climb. Though I’ve already killed some in J2M2, but J2M2 and J2M3 generally tend to be the bane of my existence (they are extremely annoying to handle, because of their great climb, turn and armanent, outmaneuvering them is basically out of question).

377

terrible idea. all parameters of every vehicle and weapon in the game should reflect reality and the benefits and drawbacks in their entirety.

discrepancies in performance are adjusted with the BR system. that is why it exists.

7 Likes
378

what is the source and methodology for these diagrams?

379

The guy who made it is catwerfer. He is a youtuber who made various videos with them.
Here he explains his methodology: https://youtu.be/xtTqA-AFR6I?si=sea0QtqCrin-tiVe

3 Likes
380

Goated cc

2 Likes
381

Very interesting. Finally a nerd that knows what he’s doing. I was already expecting another one of “muh statshark”

that said, there are inherent flaws in both methodology (a lot of extrapolation, interpolation, derivation etc) and execution (using MKB for precise inputs for these tests is nearly impossible), so take the data and those EM graphs with a rock sized grain of salt.

I was working on my own datalogging tool for FM testing and graphing but I kinda put it in the backburner due to more pressing matters IRL and forgot about it completely unfinished and broken. I should probably look into resuming that project.

Spoiler

image
image1897×1134 111 KB

image
image1467×858 246 KB

image
image2060×992 235 KB

2 Likes
382

I literally said I doubted it would break 700 km/h in real life. Maybe if you read my messages you would understand my rhetoric. Dont just look at one thing and base everything of that, when people write they can include more than one topic and connect them together.

383

Yeah they’re bot the gospel, but I think they give quite an decent overall view of a plane capabilities and are easily readable.

Nice tool you’re working on. I hope you’ll be able to complete it.

1 Like
384

after a entire year the “positione” was fixed!
immagine
thanks to @Gunjob for this!

3 Likes