Is there a point?

I'd love some way of actually seeing what damage is done in a track file or something.

Let's keep on topic pls.

Battle of Stalingrad also brought an interesting feature to the damage model.

 

When you hit a wing and weaken its structure, you can see it breaking shortly after the hits, or when the pilot pulls some G's to escape.

 

Would be nice if ED added details like this to the damage model

 

;)

 

I've noticed that the FW190 has this feature atleast somewhat modeled. I took damage on takeoff once and banged up one of the wing losing an aileron. Still managed to get it into the air and proceeded to enter a dogfight. On the first hard turn the wing snapped and down I went.

 

As far as the original question about having an actual physics engine that can track each of the thousands of rounds that may be fired in an instance during a match, tract there trajectory, and then determine if they can pass through A,B, and C depending on the angle/distance. I don't think we have overall internet bandwidth or average computer systems that could handle all that. Even games like Star Citizen which are trying to develop the most sophisticated damage systems still use damage to associated areas of impact because true physics aren't really possible.

So now you are talking about the pilot dying?

 

And I said internal damage will be done, nothing about bullets passing through an object and damaging something else...

Since when the "pilot" is not an aircraft module that can be destroyed just as anything else? I've invited you to test this (BTW, did you?) since pilot death is the most obvious thing that can be checked easy and does not depend on the other modules (which can be on the side being damaged) failing. You can check it on whatever you like if you don't like this example.

 

And I said nothing about internal damage not being "done". I said that in situations that require internal tracing (like hitting an almost hollow fuselage with a bullet or AP shell on an angle which will allow it to travel to another, unhit section), this damage is not done correctly, and with addition of E'44 this will be more noticeable than ever.

about having an actual physics engine that can track each of the thousands of rounds *** I don't think we have overall internet bandwidth or average computer systems that could handle all that.

OMG, THIS argument again. It seems it's used for almost anything these days. But in our case, it is defeated more than easily, with examples. Like

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IL-2_Sturmovik_(video_game)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_of_Flight:_The_First_Great_Air_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Thunder

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel_Fury

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_Tanks

and so on and so forth, countless they are. LO, FC, DCS not having this feature after all those years of development is, well, surprising, to say the least.

Let's keep on topic pls.

 

It is on topic.... would be the easiest way to confirm which way damage is done.

As far as the original question about having an actual physics engine that can track each of the thousands of rounds that may be fired in an instance during a match, tract there trajectory, and then determine if they can pass through A,B, and C depending on the angle/distance. I don't think we have overall internet bandwidth or average computer systems that could handle all that.

 

You look at these things in a crude way. Round does not have to "live" forever: you fire it, it looses energy, it gets discarded from game world. Millions can be fired in a match, but it does not mean millions will be tracked at the same time. In addition, it can be made that client tracks only its own rounds and sends only tracer data (which can be simplified further) to net. If client detects a hit, it then sends hit data to target client and so on. If rate of fire is very high, only n-th round can be tracked, but additional rounds can be added around the place it hits.

 

There are numerous ways how to do things, depending on what you want: optimized throughput, latency, simulation performance, anticheating and so on with everything looking real enough.

 

Even games like Star Citizen which are trying to develop the most sophisticated damage systems still use damage to associated areas of impact because true physics aren't really possible.

 

They are not trying to develop the most sophisticated damage system possible. They are developing a computer game with hope that it will sell well. Same is with DCS or other sims.

 

Good game design tries to please most customers with least money spent on development. If things are not sophisticated enough, game won't be appealing to customers and game won't sell well. On other hand, if things are very sophisticated, it doesn't mean that game will sell extraordinary, because there is a sophistication level beyond which users do not care anymore. In summary: do not enough, and profit will go down, do too much and profit will go down too (developing costs a lot), and that kills the progress as it is about money and not about sophistication anymore. :D

SO maybe I am misunderstanding, so I jumped into the ME, added a couple 190s, and a bunch of Humvee's and I took some shots at the aircraft.... I shot just behind the cockpit, I noticed damage on both sides of the aircraft... I took some shots at the pilot, and watched him slump forward dead....

Perhaps you are. Did damage always appear on both sides simultaneously? Try shooting just through the pilot's seat with an angle so that bullets would have to go through the armored seat and electrics panel behind to hit the other side in another section. Like so:

 

>           | |
   ========| |========        -- sec.1
           ||               -- sec.2
           ||
           ||   *
          ==|==

Where > is the shooting point and * is the aiming point.

Bullets should impact sec.1, go through the armored seat and go to sec.2.

 

EDIT: My first guess that there are no "left side" and "right side" to the sections of FW-190 does not seem correct since I've seen these get damage separately. Still, I believe the damage done will be applied to both sides is done a bit differently through some more complex scripting.

Another way to check this is to shoot on a higher angle so that bullets will have to travel from the last section to the middle and check if there are hits.

For the pilot it's the same -- try shooting through another section to get him, not directly at him. Like I did with UH-1.

Edited August 13, 2014 by Черный Дракул