posted 11-28- 08:25 PM               

The property gunWeight in every vehicle and aircraft plays an important role in the strength of the weapon round. It is not a factor in the weight of the actual weapon, but the round or shell. Lets look at the loadout.ppf of the FW-190 A-3 that has 2 x 7.9mm MG’s, 2 x 20mm Oerlikon Cannons and 2 x 20mm Mauser cannons:

MG’s
• (gunInit (gunName 'gun2 gunMV 2460 gunWeight .03 1200 gunWarhead 0 gunAmmo 900 gunChain 0 gunSound "sndMG1" gunRange 1200))
  Oerlikon
• (gunInit (gunName 'cannon1 gunMV 1870 gunWeight .2535 gunROF 450 gunWarhead .06 gunAmmo 60 gunChain 1 gunSound "sndCannon1" gunRange 1200))
  Mauser
• (gunInit (gunName 'cannon2 gunMV 2329 gunWeight .2535 gunROF 780 gunWarhead .06 gunAmmo 200 gunChain 2 gunSound "sndCannon1" gunRange 1200))

The gunWeight of the machine guns is a very weak .03 however is only 39.5% smaller round. The gunWeight value is 8.45 TIMES less than the larger shell or 89% weaker. Of course, there are explosive factors with the shell, but lets compare apples to apples here. If weight factor is to be corrected, then the proper gunWeight for the 7.9mm shell should be .1001, not .0300 – which would explain a lot of things, like why it takes almost 500 rounds of 7.9mm in the A3 to take down a single aircraft. Same goes for all small caliber weapons such as the .303 Brownings in all Spitfires. They all have a factor of .025 – the SpitIa is a useless aircraft.

In real life situations, 30-50 rounds of a .303 into the tail or wing of any plane/bomber will do MAJOR damage, if not cripple the plane. Into any wing and it’ll rip it clean off. Currently in SDOE, it takes almost 2000 rounds to down a single Ju-88 in single player.

For FLAK units, the gunWeight for ALL object enough is 0.08 – from the FlakPanzer to the FlakAA37mm. I will test the gunWeight factor in these objects tonight to see if I can tame the tiger in the Flak units by reducing their effectiveness.

All this being said, am I correct or am I way off target? If I am right, I would like to fix all the gunWeight factors for all aircraft and AA units and then submit them to the Planepack guys.

Does someone have a different light on this story or can correct my mistakes in my assumptions?

posted 11-28- 08:59 PM               

P.S. If you change the warhead for all the current planes guns, could you also change the bomb warheads for all the planes aswell? The values I used are as follows:

1000lb bomb warhead: 200
500lb bomb warhead: 120
250lb bomb warhead: 90

Same applies to the German bombs. You will find that ALOT of the bomb weights and warheads are incosistant in the loadouts.

P.P.S. The poundage of the bomb I refer to (Example: 500lb bomb) is the actuall ordnances weight, not the model of the bomb.

posted 11-28- 10:11 PM            

I'm not sure if he's been around lately though.

------------------
Spin

posted 11-28- 10:26 PM               

Just thought you might want to know...

Keep up the great work!

Werner

posted 11-28- 11:52 PM               

That data is the same as what I used. Remember grams need to be converted to pounds for Openplane. Yes, the .303 are very weak, but the weight is accurate. I always hoped a patch would come along to fix the problem rather than putting in historically inaccurate values though. All the data thats in the planepack now for the out-of-the-box planes should be fine, and most new planes use these as a reference and therefore should be fine too.

posted 11-29- 12:44 AM               

Sorry, couldn't resist.

posted 11-29- 11:12 AM               

For instance, probably no one would have any heartburn if you took the machineguns on the Hurricane I, Spitfire I, A6M, Bf-109E, and Ju-88, and "beefed them up" a little so that they can actually shoot each other down like they're supposed to. These are "early war" planes that are really only competitive with each other, and probably no one is building missions for Spitfire I vs FW-190D (although the Zero does need to be somewhat dangerous even to planes like the Corsair and P-47).

However, this means that you're applying new "gun force" against a damage model that's still the "old style" fuselage = 80 obhits, wingtip = 65 obhits damage model. All fine, until the aircraft receives a new damage model, such as Condor's engine damage, or control surface damage, where the actual system damage is modeled instead of the major structure failing. Typically, to get "system damage" to work, you must "beef up" the component itself, so that, say, the fuselage will last long enough to allow the engine to fail.

Not sure where I'm going with this, other than to say that the damage model and the gun effects go hand in hand. I'm not so sure 100 .303 rounds fired through the elevator of a plane would do much more than decrease the elevator's effectiveness. OTOH, put those rounds through the fuel tank... Right now, only a few planes even HAVE damageable fuel tanks.

Overall, I think there's a pretty good case for just boosting the rifle-caliber guns arbitrarily. We know they worked in real life, but they don't work in the game. Same for bomb effects. It's too "easy" to destroy stuff (and yourself) with hits that aren't even near misses. Having fighters knock down dams with 2 bombs is a bit silly.

However, if you did put out a "Planepatch 6.X" that included just the loadout.ppfs for the planes with peashooter guns, at some point you'd need to do another one to account for (hopefully) updated damage modeling for those planes.

No reason not to proceed of course. Probably be some time before all the planes get new damage models.

------------------
--jedi--

posted 11-29- 01:21 PM               

I have been working on 'boosting' the .303's in the Spit1a. I stress that I am doing this mostly for myself, to see if I can 'put my money where my mouth is', so to speak. I picked the loadouts because I don't have the talent or the time to get into DM's, and I am eagerly looking forward to Condor's engine DM's. The nice thing about using the loadout is that it doesn't have to be permanent...just remove it from your plane folder when new DM's come to the surface.

I am only working on the Spit .303's, and am learning a lot, thanks to Tailslide, Spoonman, and all the =FC= who have offered advice and support, but especially to Spyder who started this idea in my head a while back by his work, which I helped to test. Also, I am only working on the gunWarhead values, in a attempt to 'simulate' incendiary .303 rounds; seems these were used a lot in BoB. Obviously, there is a loss of realism factor here, which I hope to minimise, but my goal is to have Spits and the Hurri able to compete in online BoB missions..anyway, I am not touching the other values, and if I cannot proceed unless I have to, I will stop and leave it for those with more talent and intelligence than myself. I know a lot of work and research was done to get these values, and am not comfortable changing them.

Again, I am doing this as much for myself as anything. I am finding it a lot of fun, and very interesting and rewarding to feel I may be doing something to help those of us who wish to use craft like the Spit1a and Hurri online competitively. Also I stress that I view it as only a temporary 'fix' until such time as the DM changes come to light. I would prefer those over this. I have no intent to make any online standard, and if successful at all, will only offer it to those who want it. The nice thing about a loadout is that it can be easily removed to return the plane to it's intended state.

Wasn't going to say anything, but Jedi's post hit too close to home. I hope I haven't upset any apple carts here....not my intent, I assure you. If anyone wants, I can try to keep you apprised of any progress I may make. Thanks for lis-er, reading.

------------------
nealg=FC=

posted 11-29- 03:18 PM               

What we have to make sure with damage modelling, is that the plane is still as easy to kill as it was before. OR in the case of the B17, was harder to kill, since they blew way too easily.

What ArgonV and I have been playing with on the Camel is perhaps a start on the route I think we should be taking with DM. The fuek tank idea is another. Wherever possible, I think we should physically model these key components. Put in real fuel tanks, give them inertia boxes so thay can take damage, and tie proper effects to their damage.

My current ideas on the subject run as follows:

Engines...as per Condors basic model, but without the radiator.

Seperate radiator or oil cooler for the radials. Make the engine a child object of this item. When the item is blown away, you lose the motor. Need to leave the prop in-situ, or swap in a non-rotating model to sim a siezed engine.

Seperate fuel tanks...lots of flame possibilities here! Fuel tank hits would result in fires and white smoke....for fuel loss. Don't know how this could be made to affect the SFC of the motor though.

Engines...should have a physical presence that matches their real size. Not always the case!

posted 11-29- 05:22 PM               

------------------

Brought to you by the campaign for a better Dauntless!

posted 11-29- 05:41 PM               

That's why Condor's (and other's) work is so important, adding realistic DM to a plane makes all its historical opponents much more interesting to fly.

posted 11-29- 09:59 PM               

So, what is the current solution? Let’s take a look at a possible short term one:

I tested the A3's with gunWeight values of 0.07 for the machine guns. It takes around 100-150 rounds to take down a B-17. Is that realistic? Hard to say. With realistic damage modelling, you should be able to put a few dozen rounds into the engines with machinegun rounds that would cause serious damage. Engine damage is something I came across in Chuck Yeager’s Air Combat. Remember that game guys? From fuel and oil leaks, to hydraulics, airfoils, elevators, engine overheating, there was a lot of damage elements. But in our SDOE, I can’t realistically damage the engines with the machine guns – I need cannon rounds to cause damage or I need to increase the weight of the MG rounds to simulate these effects until a fix can be put in place for ALL aircraft.

We need something done because as it stands right now, the game has a lot of great aircraft models but a few shortcomings with respect to damage modelling.

Question is, do I fix it, or wait for the engine damage models to come out? Even if the models come out, do I still even need to tweak the ppd's?

posted 11-29- 10:16 PM               

1) Because it give an instant fix for now which increase the "feel" of realism online.

2) Because we cannot predict if or when the DM project will be successful.

I look at it this way. Sure, its a "hack", but how many of you had to re-write "house rules" to Pen & Paper role playing games like D, Traveler, or Champions? Simulating real life is a very difficult process. And, nobody will ultimately agree on what is realistic. For every statistic one side produces, others will argue anecdotes or contrary facts. This "Scientific/Realism" Debate will continue to make the sim better and better. But in the meantime, what harm is there is a "patch"?

The greatest harm I see is that plane makers might have to rethink damage modeling on their planes now, or after the DM project is complete. But wouldn't this be true in either event? When the DM model is fixed, won't many planes with "special damage effects" have to be tweaked again anyway?

Personally, I judge a sim on its look and feel. If it looks realistic and feels realistic then that's good enough for me.

Whoops- was undressed
goth=FC=

posted 11-29- 11:12 PM               

~Nat~

posted 11-30- 12:19 AM               

I'm happy with whatever gets decided as long as it gets rolled into a plane pack and doesnt cause conflicts. Maybe we can vote on it or something.. no dimpled ballots please.

TS

posted 11-30- 01:01 AM               

P.S. I hate physics class.......

posted 11-30- 02:12 AM               

TS

posted 11-30- 11:27 AM            

I agree with Mirthain, lets make the adjustments unless the DM is very close. I'm not a "plane tweaker" but it sounds like it is fairly simple. So when the new DM is finished.... change it back !

I also agree with TS, change them both. Lets rip some metal!

I also have an idea. Everyone remember how they began dropping tinfoil out of the bombers to mess up the German radar? I wonder if we can tin coat those voter chads? Oh, thats right Al Gore already invented that.

Dam...... can't find my "chad" now?

posted 11-30- 12:04 PM               

IMO

posted 11-30- 12:36 PM               

TS

posted 11-30- 01:54 PM               

As example, I had a value the other night I thought might work...took me over 900 rounds of 303 to damage a 109 ( smoking like a forest fire ) then down it. I let my son, Sparky =FC=, try it...some of you know he is pretty deadly....well, he did it without causing the smoke, in less than 500 rounds. Back to the drawing board.

It is gonna be a while before I have anything I am comfortable with, but I think it can be done. I repeat that I am not trying to upset a balance here, but simply make the Spits and Hurris capable of competing against 109's, 88's, and 87's in a BoB online scenario. When Condor's engine DM's are released, I will remove my loadout and forget it ever existed.

If I were going to fly a Spit1a against a Spit 1a, I'd want blanks, just to test flying ability and practice maneuvers. Same with a 51 vs 51 or any other plane...if I thought it would do any good, I'd try my hand at those, but I can shoot things down with them now, so compared to the .303's, the .50's are Uber. This was my sole reason for starting this. I know the work on the DM's is much more involved, and don't want it rushed - if this can be a stop- gap, then I wanted to try it.

Wasn't my intent to start any arguments...that is why I didnt want to post here until I felt I could do it. I still am not positive it is going to work, but if I do get something that seems right, all I ask is that someone try it...if you feel it is wrong, done, over, 'nuff said, and I will abandon the thing. Delete the loadout, and it never existed. Fair enough?

------------------
nealg=FC=

posted 11-30- 03:53 PM               

With a "point-value" damage model, the cannons will always be overpowered, because a single quick burst of cannon will generally contain enough "damage points" to overwhelm the structural obHits of a part. This is why the F4U-4 or 109K can kill with a single trigger press if they hit the wing of an "unmodified" 190 or Spitfire.

With machineguns, you have a "double-whammy" of having both lower damage potential AND the necessity to stay "on target" longer to put in the required obHits. Fail to get the number of hits in your first burst, you have to hit with a second burst, but that second burst doesn't hit the same spot. So instead of killing with one burst with a cannon, or the two/three bursts the guns SHOULD take, you have to get in position for 5, 6, even 7 bursts of fire before your "aggregate damage" on any one structural part reaches the obHits for that part.

In reality, that first machinegun burst might well have holed the radiator or set the fuel tank on fire, making the machineguns the legitimate threat they really were.

Solution: build in (or simulate) the actual systems that could be damaged by gunfire, so that your guns do damage when they hit something "important." The cannons, of course, will still have their "one-shot kill" potential, but now the guns will at least be dangerous.

Unfortunately, that takes a revamp of the entire plane's damage model, a somewhat straightforward, but also quite lengthy process. In the meantime, about all you can do is lower the obHits for the plane, or raise the gunWeight property in the loadout.ppf.

How much? Hard to tell. Needs online testing, and some sort of concensus on what's "reasonable." I'd say the Spit I and Hurri I would have enough ammo to kill 1 (one) Ju-88 most of the time, and probably could kill 2 Bf-109s or Stukas most of the time. But that's just an opinion, and of course the offline and online performance may not match up, so making the guns "good" online probably means making them "great" offline. Again, the "sophisticated" damage model would probably help this a bit.

posted 12-01- 03:09 PM               

When I'm done, I would like to submit them to TS and the gang to validate and verify their effectiveness. My NEXT task, is to cut the power of our Killer Flak guns. I think I have a modification that basically takes the current power and reduces it by 1/5. That means, in a 4 bomber group with 1 enemy flak gun, 1 plane may get some engine damage. With 2 flak guns, some planes may loose an engine. With 3, it's pretty noisy up there, but you can survive and is sure is realistic.

Spoon

posted 12-01- 04:00 PM               

"Libya--WWII-- A pilot in 80 Squadron, Pilot Officer V A J Stuckey, caught an SM79 on one occasion above Mersa Matruh (this in a Gloster Gladiator). He managed to creep up on the Italian without being seen and in his first attack silenced the rear gunner in his dorsal position as well as knocking out one of the aircraft's three engines. In this damaged state, the bomber was unable to outpace the Gladiator and the British pilot fired until all his ammunition was gone. However, the bomber continued to fly and the frustrated Stuckey closed in, slid back his canopy, and fired a Very flare at the enemy cockpit. This so upset the Italian crew that they baled out, and the bomber, set alight by the flare, fell in flames."

------------------

Brought to you by the campaign for a better Dauntless!

posted 12-01- 04:12 PM               

Spoon, doesn't adding weight affect the trajectory of the bullets? Couldn't you just set a small warhead charge on the bullets?

TS

posted 12-02- 02:40 AM               

I am proud to say that now the small calibre weapons seem to have 'some teeth'. It's no free ride mind you, but you no longer take 1000 rounds to down a B-17. Damage is now effective - throw a second or two worth of ammo into an engine, and it smokes. Hold it down longer, and presto - engine blows.

Mind you, the Ju-88 AND the Lancaster now have 'sharper' teeth WRT their guns.

I don't know, but now it seems more realistic with the small calibre weapons having some effectiveness. I really enjoyed taking the SpitIa up now. Light, nimble, slow, but it can lay a good sting or two. I'm guessing that if you have an aircraft with MG's and Cannons, you don't have to worry about running out of Cannons. You'll still have to earn your kill online, but the MG's now have a realistic damage effect.

I'll contact you shortly Tail, I'm off ot bed.