109 Rads DM Reworked

Moderator: Board of Directors

User avatar
Black
Posts: 778
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:42 pm

Re: 109 Rads DM Reworked

Post by Black » Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:56 am

Bounder wrote: Perhaps part of the problem isn't the hitbox but that it only requires a couple of bullets to rupture the radiator?
I think thats the problem, the radiators are either 100% working or get damaged and work for roughly 2 minutes until the engine fails, theres nothing in between. Maybe when only one of the two radiators is hit you can make it home of you fully open the intact one and throttle down. At the moment it is annoying, radiator failiure over England means I can bail out the second it happens, I have no chance making it home anyway!

Bounder
Posts: 455
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 5:03 pm
Location: Notts UK

Re: 109 Rads DM Reworked

Post by Bounder » Sat Aug 10, 2013 10:36 am

Black wrote:
Bounder wrote: Perhaps part of the problem isn't the hitbox but that it only requires a couple of bullets to rupture the radiator?
I think thats the problem, the radiators are either 100% working or get damaged and work for roughly 2 minutes until the engine fails, theres nothing in between. Maybe when only one of the two radiators is hit you can make it home of you fully open the intact one and throttle down. At the moment it is annoying, radiator failiure over England means I can bail out the second it happens, I have no chance making it home anyway!

The 109-E radiators are linked between both radiators and so it doesn't matter if you hit one or both, once the leak has begun it's just a matter of time before the coolant runs dry. Incidentally it is possible in game to only hit one (you see a leak from one and not the other) but it wont matter since they are linked and cannot be isolated from each other. The 109-F had a valve that allowed one radiator to be isolated if damaged to overcome this problem. I don't know if the rate of loss is less if you only have one radiator damaged as opposed to two but I find it's really rare to only hit one due to the convergence pattern of the Spit/Hurricane. I'm sure when I get hits on the 109s rads, the shear amount of bullets my Sptifire is spewing will mean there are a number of holes in the radiator. Whether the game is capable of modelling the difference between 20 holes and 100, and what the difference in loss would be, I don't know. I think part of the problem might be with long range shots, perhaps the bullet impact at range doesn't decrease enough. I know at double convergence that whilst my outboard guns that carry tracer will impact on the wing tips of a 109, my inboard guns will strike the 109 right around the radiator, so I take long range shots at 109s that try to extend in an attempt to pop his radiator. Sometimes I get lucky.

I don't think the time it takes for the radiator to bleed out is particularly unrealistic - you do see the odd combat report from 109 pilots that made it back after suffering radiator damage but those reports are rare . So we could argue that the evidence is that in reality it was rare to get back with radiator damage. In game, if you are fighting at the altitudes that combat occurred in RL (15,000 ft - 4.5km) you can make it back across the channel by egressing and gliding the last part to an airfield (which is what the combat report of the 109 pilot I saw did). The problem in CLoD is that a lot of combat happens on the deck and so you don't have the speed and altitude to get back. Maybe they could increase the time it takes to bleed out to account for the combat style in game, but not by much otherwise it becomes unrealistic, especially for when the combat happens at high altitude.

It's something that I think needs debating and the current situation isn't necessarily the best. It's just difficult to know what is realistic and what TF should do.
Image
My PC specs: Win10 64 Pro, CPU i7-3820 4.4GHz, 16GB RAM, GPU Nvidia 1070 (8gb vram).
Controls: Microsoft FFB2, Thrustmaster Warthog Throttle, MFG Crosswind Pedals, TrackIR5, & a bottle of Scotch.

User avatar
Black
Posts: 778
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:42 pm

Re: 109 Rads DM Reworked

Post by Black » Sat Aug 10, 2013 11:20 am

True words Bounder, after thinking about it there are probably some other factors like loadout and pilot skill involved. Most pilots know exactly the weak spots of the enemy planes, have a custom loadout and convergence which was probably different 70 years back! To me it seems that the damage model is not complex enough though. It's a fun challenge to bring a damaged plane home but in many cases it's predetermined if you can make it home or not the second you are hit! I don't expect to survive much more damage in my 109 but when I read any red message with "radiator" I know exactly what is going to happen, theres no need to adapt to unknown situations or to make spontanious decisions that decide about a more or safe landing in france or a swim in the channel! It's all or nothing at the moment, that might be historical in the case of the 109 radiator, I know that it was a weak spot but I don't know to which extend a damaged radiator would cause the engine to fail this quickly!

Robo
Posts: 3904
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 7:57 pm
Location: Slovakia

Re: 109 Rads DM Reworked

Post by Robo » Sat Aug 10, 2013 11:27 am

Spot on, Bounder!

Black having the orange damage info removed would be one of the biggest steps towards the realism, imho. Having cca only 2-3 minutes after a coolant leak is very realistic I am afraid.. Sometimes it was even faster.

Bounder
Posts: 455
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 5:03 pm
Location: Notts UK

Re: 109 Rads DM Reworked

Post by Bounder » Sat Aug 10, 2013 1:09 pm

It is a difficult one. I think there is a case for striking a balance between modelling for what we think is realistic and maybe also what is appropriate for the game. I would always want in theory what is realistic, but it's difficult to know for sure exactly what that is. Personally I might like to see variability in bleed out rate depending on whether light or heavy damage has been sustained - so if a lucky/skillful couple of long range, out of convergence hits penetrate the radiator, the bleed out rate is perhaps a little less than when the radiator is belted from close range. Whether this is possible for TF to encode and how you say what constitutes enough holes for 5 minutes bleed out compared with 2 minutes, I don't know, but it might be better for us all. I'm sure TF are on the case, they were researching the radiators and even though it appears the hit boxes are ok, maybe they will adjust something else.
Image
My PC specs: Win10 64 Pro, CPU i7-3820 4.4GHz, 16GB RAM, GPU Nvidia 1070 (8gb vram).
Controls: Microsoft FFB2, Thrustmaster Warthog Throttle, MFG Crosswind Pedals, TrackIR5, & a bottle of Scotch.

Robo
Posts: 3904
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 7:57 pm
Location: Slovakia

Re: 109 Rads DM Reworked

Post by Robo » Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:17 pm

Bounder wrote:It is a difficult one. I think there is a case for striking a balance between modelling for what we think is realistic and maybe also what is appropriate for the game. I would always want in theory what is realistic, but it's difficult to know for sure exactly what that is. Personally I might like to see variability in bleed out rate depending on whether light or heavy damage has been sustained - so if a lucky/skillful couple of long range, out of convergence hits penetrate the radiator, the bleed out rate is perhaps a little less than when the radiator is belted from close range. Whether this is possible for TF to encode and how you say what constitutes enough holes for 5 minutes bleed out compared with 2 minutes, I don't know, but it might be better for us all. I'm sure TF are on the case, they were researching the radiators and even though it appears the hit boxes are ok, maybe they will adjust something else.
Again, I agree completely. It was a genuine mistake by the TF chaps working on the DMs and weapons in the sim. The 'discovery' happened while investigating what is what in the 3d models and in the code.

The issue still exists and the rads are still too vulnerable, but it's not due to a 1c mistake with the actual 3d model (the shape and size of a particular 3d box that the game engine considers as radiator in the model and in the code). Now there are still many areas to look into - weapon efficiency at long range as Bounder! said, and also the durability of the material that is set in the game engine as radiator. This material is exactly the same for all rads in the game - be it 109 or Defiant or a Spitfire, makes no difference. This is correct, but overall value might need some tweaking to achieve 'realistic' results. Frustrating as it is, a hit in the rads meant really quick end of a water cooled engine, dozens of real 109s crash landed in Britain because of a small radiator leak. It's more affecting the 109s because of how they fight - climbing away from the targets, exposing the wings, fighting away from home etc. I like flying the 109 a lot and the best advice I got was don't get hit... :lol:

Colander might or might not be able to make the rad damage code more complex, I am sure he will if that's technically possible with the kind of access to the code he has.

What a 109 pilot claims in the chatline should bother us the least Bounder! ;)

Farber
Posts: 590
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 9:26 pm

Re: 109 Rads DM Reworked

Post by Farber » Mon Aug 12, 2013 12:09 am

http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/f ... php?t=5178

D'oh!

As I said before, 109 rads in wing, spit and hurri guns in wing where rads are... before and after convergence are rad hits... 2 rads, 2 x's as many targets... Iso valves are in the F...

We need the Dm of the spit sorted if anything, not 109 rads.
Image

Post Reply