Plane Damage -1 reply

Please wait...

Tas

Serious business brigade

50 XP

4th September 2004

0 Uploads

7,275 Posts

0 Threads

#21 13 years ago

Then why do i always get my ass handed to me in IL2 when i try to stick to a bomber's tail?




pvt. Allen

I would die without GF

50 XP

20th July 2005

0 Uploads

5,654 Posts

0 Threads

#22 13 years ago

Because you're moving to little, try being a hard target and they'll surely won't hit you.:p You have to remember that IRL bombers were easyer to damage so enemy fighters didn't had to stick behind them, instead just attack from abouve by diveing, shoot a burst and bomber is damaged.




Major Hartmann

Major Disinformation

50 XP

27th April 2003

0 Uploads

2,347 Posts

0 Threads

#23 13 years ago

Back on the way to 0.7 I got engine failure to work in planes (Could do the same for tanks, but we decided not to do this, since we found no way for repairing "broken" engines), but just where it would be most juicy, on multi engine bombers, it wouldn't work right in multiplayer. You could shoot the engines one at a time, and they would fail physically, but it wouldn't be visible. In Singleplayer, you'd see the engine stop actually, but in MP it kept running until the "primary" engine was shot, too, then every engine stopped.




Fuzzy Bunny

Luke, I am your mother.

50 XP

2nd May 2005

0 Uploads

6,274 Posts

0 Threads

#24 13 years ago

I like the idea of a limited advanced damage system:

-Planes don't just explode, but catch fire and become hard to control. They only explode a few % of the time. -It's possible to control (but difficult) burning planes, and crash-land/ditch them, with injuries to the pilot. -It's easier to kill the pilot.

And I really would like an exit delay for planes (opening the canopy, standing up, getting out) and a higher chute delay. I think making it a bit easier to survive a crash landing, and more difficult to bail out, would sort of balance out.




Frederf

I take what n0e says way too seriously

50 XP

2nd March 2004

0 Uploads

2,156 Posts

0 Threads

#25 13 years ago

I'm aware that tailgunners were mainly for "moral support" and weren't that effective. But one or two bullets COULD take out a fighter if they were lucky in real life, in FH it's hopeless unless there were a few lucky hit points.

Another reason tailgunners in real life weren't that effective is the fighter pilots wanted to live and did their best to attack from the best angles. In FH the fighter just sits behind lazily. If you fixed the tailgunners the fighters would have to work for their kill, unlike now where they just sit behind and hold the trigger.

And bombers IRL were harder to kill than in FH.




MkH^

FH tester

50 XP

25th September 2003

0 Uploads

2,286 Posts

0 Threads

#26 13 years ago
pvt. AllenBecause you're moving to little, try being a hard target and they'll surely won't hit you.:p You have to remember that IRL bombers were easyer to damage so enemy fighters didn't had to stick behind them, instead just attack from abouve by diveing, shoot a burst and bomber is damaged.

I remember reading the Luftwaffe experten specifically avoided attacking from above at the advanced bombers because of the lethal fire from the top turrets. Instead they went for alternative angles.

Though I too have to confess, I'm too getting my ass kicked often by bombers tail gunners in IL-2 :(




Frederf

I take what n0e says way too seriously

50 XP

2nd March 2004

0 Uploads

2,156 Posts

0 Threads

#27 13 years ago

IL-2 Sturmovik? Yeah those gunners are insane. In different versions they've gone from can't-hit-the-side-of-a-barn to snipers.




Admiral Donutz VIP Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,271 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#28 13 years ago

FrederfI'm aware that tailgunners were mainly for "moral support" and weren't that effective. But one or two bullets COULD take out a fighter if they were lucky in real life, in FH it's hopeless unless there were a few lucky hit points.

Another reason tailgunners in real life weren't that effective is the fighter pilots wanted to live and did their best to attack from the best angles. In FH the fighter just sits behind lazily. If you fixed the tailgunners the fighters would have to work for their kill, unlike now where they just sit behind and hold the trigger.

And bombers IRL were harder to kill than in FH.

Haha you can say that again, I never can't hit a thing when I tailgun. I do however tailgun all the time on maps such as BoB because on my laptop I would simply get a way to low FPS to fly myself and I'm not a very good pilot.




LordKhaine

I sing the body electric...

50 XP

5th October 2003

0 Uploads

612 Posts

0 Threads

#29 13 years ago
FrederfIL-2 Sturmovik? Yeah those gunners are insane. In different versions they've gone from can't-hit-the-side-of-a-barn to snipers.

http://www.zen17212.zen.co.uk/Pics/IL2/nocontrols.jpg

^ that was taken after attacking a lone B17, diving steeply at high speed and pulling up sharply to strafe the underbelly. I was probably around 600kph when I got hit by the belly gunner, losing all controls instantly. Yeah.. the gunners in IL2 are somewhat excessive, to the point that I often fear a stuka more than a fighter, simply because that gunner will sometimes snipe me no matter what speed or maneuvers I attempt.

Seems that devs for games have no idea of subtle changes. Instead things change between extremes.