Stalingrad (BOS) Moscou (BOM), Kuban (BOK)
Avec des précisions sur le future tank SU-152 aux caractéristiques un peu particulières.
Ainsi que les nouveaux pilotes de la RAF et Soviétiques pour les Spitfire Mk.V et Spitfire Mk.IX et pilotes de la RAF, de l'USAF et Soviétiques pour les P-40E, P-47D et B-25D.
Restera à venir plus tard les pilotes des A-20B et des P-39L dont les animations ne sont pas fini.
https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/60 ... ent=923140
I7 9700K - 32 Go RAM - Gigabyte RTX 2080 super OC 8G - Simped vario pro/USB - HP Reverb - Hotas warthog n°918
"Tant que l'on n'a pas tout donné, on n'a rien donné." Georges Guynemer
I've read the last few pages very briefly and I would like to give a few quick answers:
1. We are aware that a significant part of FC players perceive the new DM as a step back to the RoF. We hear your voices and are working on this issue.
2. In the current DM, as in the previous one, the direction of the bullet's impact into the wing is taken into account. For example, if the bullet hits the wing from above or below, the chance of spars damage is significantly reduced. Thus, most likely, the bullet "hits the air" in this case. The probability of hitting the spar when hitting the wing depends on the direction in 3D-space.
3. We do not want to use detailed hit-boxes for each element of the airframe structure (such as spars, stringers, ribs, wires, rods, hinges, etc.) because of two major reasons:
3-a) we try to save CPU time, while increasing the number of hit-boxes leads to an increase in cross-checks in collision detection algorithms, as well as usage of memory for all layers of 3D-models in geometric progression; and
3-b) an increase in the internal detailing of 3D models increases the cost of producing detailed content (in terms of time and money) and pushes us out of business.
Therefore, we use major hit boxes with combination of methods of probability theory to clarify the fact of getting into a particular major element of the airframe structure.
4. Yes, we are aware that a couple of years ago ED started developing a very detailed model of hit-boxes for some airplanes in DCS. We still think that this significantly affects performance and this decision is premature for the real-time simulation of more or less massive dogfight on typical PC.
5. We do not take into account the angle of hit the fabric. Every bullet makes a 'virtual hole' in the skin of size that depends just on the caliber. As you know we have only three levels of visual damages to the skin for each part of the airplane. This is a convention of the simulator at this stage.
6. When a bullet hits a spar (taking into account the probability of hitting it), wing loses its strength. The load that the wing can withstand depends on the degree of damage of its spars.
7. The extent of damage to the spar depends on its material and on the number and caliber of bullets that hit the spar 'mathematically' at the same place (based on probability theory). That means that size of spar makes sense.
8. During the check of this 'FC problem' we figured out that the data source we used for determine dimensions of spars for all our WW1 airplanes was unexpectedly not very accurate. Last week I checked all blueprints and charts that we have, and I must say there is quite a difference with data we used. Some of our WW1 airplanes have almost right size of spars (Pfalz f.e.), while others have them from 10% to 30% (such as Albatross, Halberstadt, etc.), or even more than 70% thinner (Fokker D.7). That's sad, and we will correct this as soon as we are ready with the new and well checked data.
9. But this is only one side of the problem. The other side is that we need to improve the airframe DM from AP bullets anyway.
Work in progress...