Damage Model Discussion--HPW Campaign DM released!

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

I am curious about other users opinion's about the current damage model in 1.46, so I have set up a poll. Overall, I think the DM in BHaH/HITR is very good, especially considering the limitations of the CFS3 engine--the OBD team members aren't miracle workers, after all, even if we sometimes think they may be! However, there are at least two areas which I feel could use a little improvement. However, before I discuss these two areas, please take a minute to vote in the above poll.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

Now that you are back, my first impression is that entire wing structures are too easily separated from the rest of the air frame by streams of bullets. Too frequently, an enemy plane will be flying along and getting shot, without much apparent damage or effect on maneuverability, when suddenly the whole wing blows off at the root. This strikes me as unrealistic. More likely, bullets would put holes into and rip fabric, but not destroy the entire wing structure. I suppose wings did come off in real life, but more likely from over-stressing a heavily bullet-ridden wing in a dive, not in level flight. N.B. I think the wing-tips are okay, it's mainly the wing-root that bothers me here. Others opinions may differ, however.

 

The second area I would like to improve is engine damage. Several people have noticed that if you pump enough bullets into a quicker adversary such as an Se5a, they will slow down until you can get in close enough and finish them off. In general, this probably did happen in real life. However, I think the effect is a little too pronounced too early in combat. In other words, I don't believe that relatively 'minor' engine damage should cause such a disproportionate loss in speed as we seem to have now. Another current effect of 'minor' engine damage is loss of power, which causes the damaged airplane to go into 'glide' mode because the aircraft can no longer maintain altitude. Again, this effect is fine in a heavily damaged engine, but a relatively undamaged engine should be able to at least maintain altitude.

 

Strengthening both the wing roots and the engine slightly, I believe, will improve dogfights by making both the player's and the AI's craft somewhat less resistant to sudden wing loss or sudden loss of engine power--at least early in a dogfight. This should result in both somewhat longer and more interesting dogfights, as a damaged opponent, while weaker, will still be capable of maneuver and even possible counter-attack.

 

If enough people express an interest, I will most likely go ahead and release an update to my DM. Fixing the wing and engine problems shouldn't take very long. If enough people can agree about any other problems with the DM, I will consider doing something about them in a later patch. I look forward to your responses.

Edited March 28, 2010 by Herr Prop-Wasche

[Siggi 10]

You have to take into account which bullet-spread option players are using too. In DiD we have the biggest spread, so we don't see wings being sawn off that often. For us I'd say the stock DM is just about right.

[Fortiesboy 3]

Hmm It will be interesting to see what comes from the poll.

I have found that the new releases from the Devs do change the DMs from whatever i am using at the time. I invariably find two things- and the latest is no different.

1. It takes too many bullets on target to destroy an enemy.

2. It takes too few bullets on target to disable the player.

 

As a result of the first I created my DMs which,naturally- , I consider made the DM more realistic. I have always said that IMHO the big thing to aim for in RL WWl air combat was for the pilot (talking fighters here ) to get behind his opponent. If he did and got near enough, then his opponent was likely to be a goner, or at least knocked out of the action.

 

All right, so the bullets were not cannon, but they were hitting relatively delicate structures.

I don't think this is acknowledged enough in the sim. The bullets may not knock off a wing but you can bet they weakened it many times, enough for the stresses of continued combat flying to cause it to fail and probably come off.

And unlike WW 2 aircraft, there was no damage prevention built into these first planes. Pilots and engines readily took hits if the bullet was on target.

 

IMHO, I get the impression that the thinking is that a half decent hard core flight sim pilot can too readily get into a killing position of an AI enemy. Which, with the limitations of the AI, is true. So- to even things up a bit the ability to damage the plane and to fly as fast and as high ( the fuel debate ? ) will favour the enemy plane.

That way, we won't have an arcade sim.

In an online-only sim where all planes are flown by humans, those considerations don't have to be made. Everyone can have the same scenery, same planes, same FM and DM and away you go.

 

In an AI sim, it then becomes a matter of opinion as to which compromise is the less unrealistic.

1. Do I make the FMs of the planes such that it is harder (almost impossible? )

for the player to get behind the AI, but give "realistic " DM for him to achieve, when he does get to shoot him? -- Or,

2 Do I give him a FM where his superior plane will outfly the AI and he will quite readily get on his 6, but the DM will mean his bullets won't easily kill the AI.or

3. Do I try to achieve a balance on each?

 

Whatever is chosen, it creates the most talking points to be found in any combat sim forum.

 

If the DID guys are flying " full real", ( as i understand they are )

no labels, padlock, TAC, external views, always cockpit with no HUD view etc - then my hat is off to them if they regularly survive dogfights involving more than one EA.

I nearly made a thread headed "Less aggressive my A...", re the latest

Less aggressive setting in the patch. Don't misunderstand me here- that is a compliment to this AI .

In QC, One v One, you can handle the EA who stays high and isn't too aggressive. Sure you can.

BUT- set it up with two or three EA,(Aces), against you and see if you don't get shot up. With aids on, you can readily see where they all are, but you try to find where that second bugger is, against that scenery, with No aids,whilst you're catching the first one.! And if you do see the second one lining you up and break off to deal with him, try finding the first one shortly after!

And if he does get behind you, his two or three hits do for you.

This is good combat simming- I like this setup, which can be achieved in CFS3 QC with weather and location and plane of your choice.

 

So, when I do finally get these chaps in my sights, I don't want to use half or more of a magazine to smash into one plane and not disable or destroy it. Therefore I change the DM.

In fact, I also tweak the FM on a couple of models to catch'em quicker!

 

I don't fly campaign much so much of what I have said may not be too relevant to that.

 

Just my 2 pennorth.

Edited December 23, 2009 by Fortiesboy

[Hellshade 110]

Although I have been a big fan of the alternate DMs, I think they Devs have gotten it pretty much spot on now. I enjoy flying "vanilla" HitR in Historical AI mode. The AI, DMs and FMs all feel top notch to me.

 

Hellshade

[Von Paulus 8]

With this expansion everything seems more balanced between historical reality and the fact this is a game simulator.

So I'll probably stay with HiTR's FM and DM but really appreciate the efforts you people do trying to create a better combat flying experience in a already top of the notch combat sim.

[Creaghorn 10]

IMHO this DM is just right. if you hit the right sports, you can down him easily, if not, you can waste lot of ammo (especially in my homebrew without distant impact clues).

LvR once wrote that his brother in average needs about 20 hits to down an enemy (talking about hits, not the wasted ammo of course), and he also said that this is rather the hughe exception.

from the stats in this DM I need about between 30, 40+ hits to get somebody down, which is realistic IMO. and we all are not MvR or Fonck.

 

i agree that broken wings should more occure because of stressing a damaged wing when out of control, instead of shooting it off. but shooting off wings also happened now and then so i'm ok with that. i like the current DM as it is. it has enough variation.

 

things which IMHO are missing are.

-if you have a hole in your petroltank. there should be the danger of igniting or explosion after some time, because very hot petrol is leaking and spraying on a very hot engine. that's why they shut down the engine and glided earthwards. they did not fly with a punctured petroltank.

- instant flamers. sometimes a lucky single bullet at the right spot could ignite your engine at once. that's how lufbery died.

- if you are burning, you simply shut down your engine and the fire is gone. that's probably a glitch or maybe coded.

- if you hit somebody with a melonshot, the out of control-behaviour could be improved, though obviously more a FM thing.

- maybe a little more inaccurate AI shooting. the setting in WS say from wich distance they start to shoot, but little more inaccuracy (i don't mean the bulletspread) would be nice.

of course no wishlist and P3 is done. just mentioning what might be improved in P4

 

otherwise i'm completely happy as it is now. very good balanced

 

forgot to mention, a little less accurate shooting of AI would emulate missing buffeting etc. in his FM.

Edited December 23, 2009 by Creaghorn

[sitting_duck 3]

You have to take into account which bullet-spread option players are using too. In DiD we have the biggest spread, so we don't see wings being sawn off that often. For us I'd say the stock DM is just about right.

 

 

Is there a convergence option? If so,,,where?

[Creaghorn 10]

Is there a convergence option? If so,,,where?

 

no convergence option. an option where you can set the spread of the bulletstream. less accurate means the guns are spraying more. normal is quite parallel with some spray, and accurate is as alined like laserbeams.

[von Baur 54]

no convergence setting in OFF, Duck. Previously discussed in this thread: http://forum.combata..._1entry356117 .

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

I am quite pleased with the current DM. Flying full DID with guns set to a normal spread and the AI tail gunner set to "less accurate" seems to offer the best of all options to me. Dogfights tend to last a good long time unless I can get up close on an enemy's six and get solid hits into his cockpit and engine. Most of the time I do not lose large amounts of control or power when taking initial hits from an attacker. I have seen many variations of my kills going down, from the long slow glide into the ground, to the violent death spin, to wings shedding, to engines parting company with the airframe, and others. I find the current DM to be excellent, at least for how I am working this sim.

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

 

.

[VonGuber 2]

I'm also pretty happy with the new DM. In general, I'd (usually) agree with Fortiesboy that it seems like one or two rounds from an enemy will disable my plane. That could happen, but not every time. I fly mostly DiD settings and it is harder now to bring down an EA than before HiTR. I was previously getting 2 or 3 claims every mission, now it's one or none usually. I also don't see wings coming off much, but that's because of the settings I use. I would say that some A/C types seem to explode or catch fire at the drop of a hat - Be2c for example, mainly 2 seaters. I think maybe that's a bit much and might be adjusted.

 

On the whole, though, I like it - especially with the choice of AI models.

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

Thank you for the replies. So far, it seems most people are pretty happy with the latest DM. In truth, I haven't had a lot of time to fly yet with the new HITR expansion, so maybe the devs made some changes from the previous DM and have improved it. Another testament to the devs devotion to improving their product as much as possible.

 

If I may venture an opinion here, I think one reason people don't mind the wings coming off or the engine losing power on the AI planes is to "even the odds" somewhat in combat against the AI. I agree with FB and others who argue that it seems to take human players longer to disable an AI aircraft than the other way around. Even rookie or intermediate AI pilots seem to have laser aiming systems installed on their guns and cause pretty serious damage to my craft with just a 1 or 2 second burst. They also seem to be excellent at hitting my aileron cables on their first pass. Humans are less able than the AI to concentrate their fire on a specific part of the aircraft so it is not surprising that we tend to hit the largest component instead. Perhaps the wings blowing off is a fair tradeoff?

 

What would people think about strengthening the aileron cables a bit? Are there many others who feel that their aileron cables are a little too easy for the AI to hit? Or is it just my imagination, LOL?

[Dej 17]

I'm generally happy with the DM and apparate variations therein I can put down to my own inconsistent piloting.

 

I DO share FB's observations though that I seem too easy to damage with a few shots and the enemy too hard, i.e. I see puffs of smoke and debris but they fly on unfazed.

 

My poll answers are not strongly felt but if you guys did another set of DMs I'd ceertainly give 'em a try... variety is the spice after all

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

Added poll question about AI's ability to hit player's aircraft aileron cables.

 

Revised third poll question to clarify it is about components on AI aircraft only.

Edited December 23, 2009 by Herr Prop-Wasche

[zoomzoom 2]

Seems spot on to me so far. What Siggi said is right, in DID I've only seen wings sawed off once...and very realistically at that. Also, only 1 or 2 flamers as well.....so, so far it seems quite accurate. Haven't crashed much though to see if thats improved.....guess I'll be pushing the envelope there soon enough too. Like it or not.

 

ZZ.

[Siggi 10]

.

 

I am quite pleased with the current DM. Flying full DID with guns set to a normal spread and the AI tail gunner set to "less accurate" seems to offer the best of all options to me. Dogfights tend to last a good long time unless I can get up close on an enemy's six and get solid hits into his cockpit and engine. Most of the time I do not lose large amounts of control or power when taking initial hits from an attacker. I have seen many variations of my kills going down, from the long slow glide into the ground, to the violent death spin, to wings shedding, to engines parting company with the airframe, and others. I find the current DM to be excellent, at least for how I am working this sim.

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

 

.

 

 

Flying DiD with guns set to normal? Not in the DiD campaign I hope.

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

Merry Christmas, everyone!

 

And BUMP!

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

I just had a thought.

 

One possible solution to the super-sniping abilities of the AI on human flown aileron cables would be to alter the "Probability" section of the aileron cables damage section of the xdp files for all QC aircraft. Currently, if the AI fires a bullet into the damage box for the aileron cables, there is a 100% chance the bullet will strike the cable. What if I lowered that percentage to 65% or even 50? These cables are rather thin, so wouldn't a probability below 100% make sense for the aileron cables? And, because I would be altering the QC files only, this would only reduce the AI chances of striking a human controlled aircraft's aileron cables in the campaign.

 

This would work for campaign but would not work for those who fly QC only because both the human and AI pilots use QC aircraft in quick battles.

 

How would you feel if it were harder for the AI to clip your aileron cables? Fair or unfair? A cheat or a reasonable compromise to overcome the limitations of the CFS3's AI and damage modeling? Of course, I could edit the files of all of the planes so that EVERY plane has aileron cables which are harder to hit.

 

Any thoughts? I will be out for a few hours, so don't worry if I don't respond right away.

[+Polovski 458]

The damage boxes for the aileron cables ARE very very thin already but they do run along the length of the fuse of course.

[Bullethead 12]

The main damage change I'd like to see is in regards to bulletholes. I'm talking just the little round holes, not crumpled wingtips and such. It seems like only about 1/2 of the planes if OFF get bulletholes at all, and only about 1/2 of them get them all over. The rest just show holes in a few areas, like the tail, but not the wings, etc.

[ConradB 0]

Just out of curiosity, how vulnerable is the pilot? I have seen my rounds pepper the cockpit at close range, and it seems like the AI pilot is little affected by it if at all. It doesn't seem to matter whether I fly for the Entente, or the Central Powers. Just curious is all. Smae for the observer gunners too. Thanks!

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

Damage depends upon at least (probably more) factors: size and placement of damage box, total number of damage points, and threshold effects, which are triggered when a certain percentage of damage points have been taken by the object.

 

In order for the last two to be a factor, a projectile must enter into the area of the damage box. As Pol said above, the damage box for the aileron cable is very thin (he didn't say how thin, however) but it extends along the fuselage for a total of three damage boxes. You can cause damage to the aileron cable by striking any of these three damage boxes.

 

Damage to the pilot is caused by a projectile striking one of two damage boxes. The first damage box has the pilot as the only object, so any projectile entering this box will damage the pilot to some degree. The second damage box is shared by the pilot and center fuel tank on most planes. If a projectile strikes the second damage box, whether the pilot or the fuel tank is hit is determined by comparing a computer die roll with a percentage contained in the xdp file in the "damagebox" section. Currently, I think this is set to 60% for the fuel tank and 40% for the pilot.

 

Therefore, you can increase the vulnerability of the pilot in several ways. The first would be to enlarge or to change the position of the pilot's damage box. If you feel the pilot is not hit very often, then a possible cause could be that he "sits" too low in the cockpit, or in other words, his damage box is not "tall" enough. Either the devs or someone familiar with gmax would have to fix this, if this is the problem. A second way to increase the vulnerability of the pilot would be to decrease his hit points in one or both damage boxes in the xdp file. Finally, a third way to increase the vulnerability of the pilot would be to increase the likelihood of a projectile striking the pilot if the projectile enters the damage box shared by the pilot and the fuel tank. For example, instead of the default chance of 40%, you could raise this to 50% or higher while at the same time lowering the chance of hitting the fuel tank.

 

Based on my experiences with the sim, I feel that the damage box for the pilot might be raised a couple of inches. But then you also have to account for the eagle-eyed vision and dead-eye-dick shooting skills of the AI. Raising the pilot's damage box might cause the number of human pilots killed by head-shots to increase dramatically. Then, OBD would have people complaining about that! So, there is no easy solution.

Edited December 26, 2009 by Herr Prop-Wasche

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

BH,

 

Which planes don't show any bullet holes for you? I have definitely seen bullet holes on the Albs (all series), the Fokker DVII, the Se5a's, and the Spads (to some extent). Can't recall the others at the moment.

[ConradB 0]

Thanks HPW!

 

Very nice explination. I just like to get in close to make sure as many rounds land on target bfore firing, and figured at point blank range, before firing with little or no deflection. And I wasn't thinking about the sniper quality of the AI. I get hit by anything, and the engine immediately begins to fail.

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

A couple of patches ago, OBD cut the hit points for the engines by half. In general, I agree with their decision. However, I feel they may have been a little excessive, so I am currently experimenting with increasing the hit points a bit and slightly adjusting the threshold percentages. So far, I like what I am seeing. With the engines a little sturdier, the dogfights seem to last a little longer and to be more intense. My goal is to make the engines last a little longer before they show a noticeable decrease in performance while still allowing for an eventual loss of power, flamers, and explosions.