S3 Series

question for the damage model:

When a destroyed part is hit again does it automatically cause damage to something else?

it would seem that when something is destroyed it doesn't mean it has *poof* disappeared. Hits on an object already rendered "non functional" should not (in my opinion) move the damage to something not yet destroyed.

It's not like everything falls off the plane like it's shown on the computer.

I guess what I am wondering is how the damage system works for damaging parts in front of others that have been hit... does it basically mean that the hit boxes from the destroyed objects now give damage to something else thereby increasing the number of hit boxes?

Am I thinking too simplistic and not understanding what is happening?

I'm sure those on the FM team will answer, but I think I disagree with your reasoning that once a part is destroyed, the damage should not be moved to something else. While I do agree that after destroying your fuel tank, the damage from further hits should not be transferred to the elevator, I would think that continued hits to the Fuel tank hit box would be transferred to the wing. In other words, if I hit the left fuel tank in your wing, I would expect to see the fuel tank compromised, and if I continue to empty my guns into the same area, I woudl expect to see a complete wing failure.

On the other hand, If I hit yoru left aileron, to the point of it coming off. I would not expect continued hits in that left aileron area to be transferred to the right aileron (it's on the opposite wing of the one I'm shooing). I would expect that at some point, my continued hits to where your left aileron was would destroy the left wing. Along the same lines, If I hit your rudder and take it off, I woudl expect that continued hits to the rudder hit box would result in destroying the vertical stabilizer. After I hit and destroy pilot armor, I would expect further hits to the same area to hit the pilot and kill him.

I expect that after I cause damage to an engine, further hits in the same place result in damage to that wing itself. I would not expect those continued hits to the wing to affect the opposite side wing, the rudder, or something not related to the area I'm hitting.

Link to post video's/observations/etc can be found here:

http://forum.totalsims.com/viewforum.php?f=60

Thank you to all who participated, and hopefully the game will be better for it. Expect a round two to evaluate the tweakings--once they get made/implemented.

Spot on dazed...exactly the thinking here

ok... simplistic here to try and show what I'm thinking.

example:
fuel = 2 hit boxes
Engine = 1 hit box

fuel is hit.....
does that mean that the engine is now 3 hit boxes as a result of transfer of damage?

Yes, destroy a part, and any further rounds to same box transfers damage to the next part, and yes, in a logical area. Rudder gets killed and any further hits transfers damage to vertical stab, ron hits go to wing, damage engine then goes onto destroy engine.
When I first included secondary parts to list, without changing any other values entire airplanes starting going poof if ya looked at them cross wise. This demonstrated that, before, you would kill a part, keep hammering away on the part that is now gone but the box continued to absorb rounds turning it into armor protection for the next part, hence the term bullet sponge, and it was true. YOur bullets weren't doing ANY more damage when hitting a destroyed part. Now, all your ammunition, if its hitting the airplane is doing damage to parts.

[quoteYes, destroy a part, and any further rounds to same box transfers damage to the next part, and yes, in a logical area. Rudder gets killed and any further hits transfers damage to vertical stab, ron hits go to wing, damage engine then goes onto destroy engine.
When I first included secondary parts to list, without changing any other values entire airplanes starting going poof if ya looked at them cross wise. This demonstrated that, before, you would kill a part, keep hammering away on the part that is now gone but the box continued to absorb rounds turning it into armor protection for the next part, hence the term bullet sponge, and it was true. YOur bullets weren't doing ANY more damage when hitting a destroyed part. Now, all your ammunition, if its hitting the airplane is doing damage to parts.][/quote]


So if one could "kill" the rudder and continue to to hit the same area then at some point it could even destroy the plane?
If a part is "killed" shot off or disabled don't see anything logical about damage being transferred to another part--like if its dead -its dead.
Now in the case of say a fuel tank hit causing a leak and additional hits could take the wing off--that's "logical".


Regardless, be glad to be part of additional test to help fine tune things. Maybe have a regular test & tune night each week?

So... you open fire on a plane and take it's rudder off. If you continue to hit that same area in real life, the bullets would still be hitting the vertical stabilizer even if the rudder had departed the aircraft already, (assuming you are shooting from the 6 o'clock position of the enemy aircraft). Once the vertical stab is killed, the aircraft should become uncontrollable (assuming a single vertical stab), and crash. The aircraft doesn't just explode, but should be completely uncontrollable. Logical.

Kudo's to everyone involved in updating terrains, flight models, damage models, etc. I'm sure some "surprises" will occur along the way, but for the most part I have enjoyed learning the new flight models. I consider auto climb to be a beneficial aspect of the game, but was not aware that it was being accomplished by the aircraft trim system. I can understand now how changing a flight model to be more realistic can also destroy the convenience of auto climb. If I had to choose between being more realistic (such as a valid torque model), vs Auto climb, I would much rather have the more realistic flight model. I also agree that using the in game's trim system should not be a way to "game the game" by being able to fly the virtual model well beyond the capability of the real model. Didn't realize that was possible until I read how the trim system works, and could be used inappropriately.

Seems like working with flight or damage models is kind of like playing Jinga! Touch one little piece, and the rest of the stack comes tumbling down. Good luck guys. Not sure how you guys put up with so much criticism before just tossing in the towel and saying "it ain't worth it". Keep at it! As long those who are working with the change are also folks who actually fly and participate in the sim as a player, then eventually, we wind up with improvements. The danger would be having folks that don't have to live with the consequences of the changes in charge of the changes!

Within the past year we've seen some fantastic terrains implemented, (and more to come), flight models being re-aligned to be more "real world" levels. I think the F4U work was a huge success - what a fun ride! The A6M's are still a lot of fun, but now require a bit more "flying" than previously. I'm not a LA series flyer but seems the LA-7 still gets a lot of airtime when it's out. All in all, I feel like there are more options for me to fly now with regard to aircraft, and I love the new terrains/maps! Quite a bit of positive change since my involvement over the past 1.5 years.

I know there are varying opinions about how to accomplish things. Heck, I've heard dobs and dawger be on opposite sides of the fence on how best to achieve certain things. The point is that as long as folks who also play the game are working on achieving the same goal, disputes and disagreements regarding how to get there should be manageable. Try it one way- taste the pudding. If it's yummy then mark it complete. If it taste wrong, then go back and try it another way. Keep fighting the good fight guys! The work is appreciated, and I can accept that sometimes things work well, and sometimes they don't. The only folks who never make mistakes are the folks who never try to do anything.


Respectfully submitted,
-dazed

I can only agree with Dazed. Well written sir.

Cheers!
/Robert
4th FG

Ya, need to overcome that trim being tied to autopilot