Damage from fire

[bkmilliken@psn 3]

Recently I've noticed there being a very long lag between a massive engine fire and player death. In some cases a plane burning for 10-15 seconds than the fire extinguishes and the aircraft is still airworthy and in the fight. Please make huge fuel fires either much less common or far more deadly. If I see a single engine piston planes entire front 3rd engulfed in petrol flames I should be able to count that bandit out of action and no longer a threat. The game is frustrating enough with pilot sniping gunners and planes performing rolling scissors missing major control surfaces but if my bandit bursts into flames it should be a splash.

[HochgeborenKlown 1,276]

9 hours ago, bkmilliken@psn said:

Recently I've noticed there being a very long lag between a massive engine fire and player death. In some cases a plane burning for 10-15 seconds than the fire extinguishes and the aircraft is still airworthy and in the fight. Please make huge fuel fires either much less common or far more deadly. If I see a single engine piston planes entire front 3rd engulfed in petrol flames I should be able to count that bandit out of action and no longer a threat. The game is frustrating enough with pilot sniping gunners and planes performing rolling scissors missing major control surfaces but if my bandit bursts into flames it should be a splash.

I shot up a BV-238 and set 3 of his engines on fire...He circled over a base for almost 5 minutes and killed another plane that tried to shoot him down before finally crashing...gaijin is letting fires burn longer and more and more planes are surviving a first fire...You can either press home repeated attacks or watch in awe as multi engine bombers just kind of ignore all the fires burning on them...

[f_ritz 24]

In my experience fires on fighters are 95% deadly when I'm flying and 5% deadly when enemies are flying. RNG I guess.

[bkmilliken@psn 3]

I have no idea why they'd extend aircraft life in such an unrealistic way. Last night I watched a pair of players make a text book attack on 2 fighters in which both bandits were hit and caught fire. Both attackers were than promptly shot down by flaming bandits who had pulled one circle vertically. As I said, pushing the envelope with control surface damage is one thing. This fire damage model ruins any sense of an immersive battle.

[SOL_1 1,013]

I disagree. Fire has been one of the most frustrating deaths in my experience. In my engagements, I evade head-ons and dodge incoming bullets, nothing else made me more mad than taking a grazing hit of a single shell that starts a fire and shortly after destroys the entire plane. It used to be so much worse than what we have these days, at least the fire stops when your fuel is out, it takes a lot longer for your plane to fall apart, and you have overall a decent chance to make it out of the fire alive.

 

I think, the way it is now, is fine. Of course, I am biased against it, so do consider that when evaluating my judgement. But do also consider, that a bandit catching fire does give you a significant advantage when continuing the fight, and that it comes down to technique to finish them quickly, if they choose to continue the dogfight that is. If they disengage and dive down to their friendlies, I would say, they got lucky, just as you and I get lucky sometimes, and I wouldn't call for a balance change because of it.

 

 

With warm regards

-bruh__moment

Edited August 18, 2021 by bruh__moment

[bkmilliken@psn 3]

What you said about fire being to common needs to be addressed rather than let planes fly around still fighting  on fire. It's not an advantage at all to the attacker after the hit if the bandit is in a superior aircraft and has good speed. I shouldn't have to give up my tactical advantage gained dealing a lethal hit in order to " finish him off". Now if I just get hits, maybe see oil smoke or steam I definitely am not considering that bandit out of the fight but a fuel fire on these single engine aircraft should be lethal within seconds.

[HochgeborenKlown 1,276]

On 18/08/2021 at 16:51, bruh__moment said:

I disagree. Fire has been one of the most frustrating deaths in my experience. In my engagements, I evade head-ons and dodge incoming bullets, nothing else made me more mad than taking a grazing hit of a single shell that starts a fire and shortly after destroys the entire plane. It used to be so much worse than what we have these days, at least the fire stops when your fuel is out, it takes a lot longer for your plane to fall apart, and you have overall a decent chance to make it out of the fire alive.

 

I think, the way it is now, is fine. Of course, I am biased against it, so do consider that when evaluating my judgement. But do also consider, that a bandit catching fire does give you a significant advantage when continuing the fight, and that it comes down to technique to finish them quickly, if they choose to continue the dogfight that is. If they disengage and dive down to their friendlies, I would say, they got lucky, just as you and I get lucky sometimes, and I wouldn't call for a balance change because of it.

 

 

With warm regards

-bruh__moment

I set a D4Y3 Ko on fire last night, always been a sure thing if you can avoid turning with him while he burns out...He turned and put his fire out while I watched...I do not recall a single time in almost 8 years of play that a single engine Nippon Empire plane survived a fire, especially when I was in one...

[SOL_1 1,013]

3 hours ago, HochgeborenKlown said:

I set a D4Y3 Ko on fire last night, always been a sure thing if you can avoid turning with him while he burns out...He turned and put his fire out while I watched...I do not recall a single time in almost 8 years of play that a single engine Nippon Empire plane survived a fire, especially when I was in one...

 

Maybe you got your memories mixed up here? Japanese planes have always been notorious for resisting fires, which my experience can also attest to. If there was a historical reason for it, I do not know, but I'd wager that it is the ultra-sharp nippon-steel katana-wings that simply cut off the fire from the oxygen supply and extinguish it.

 

 

With warm regards

-bruh__moment

[HochgeborenKlown 1,276]

10 hours ago, bruh__moment said:

 

Maybe you got your memories mixed up here? Japanese planes have always been notorious for resisting fires, which my experience can also attest to. If there was a historical reason for it, I do not know, but I'd wager that it is the ultra-sharp nippon-steel katana-wings that simply cut off the fire from the oxygen supply and extinguish it.

 

 

With warm regards

-bruh__moment

Lolz, Good One!!!...My experience has been that Nippon Empire planes burned like gas soaked paper planes, but planes made from notoriously Stronk Stalinium were pretty much impervious to any fires not generated by the breath of Godzilla...

[HochgeborenKlown 1,276]

I knew I had these somewhere, look at the time stamp from when I first shot this guy and the 2nd just before he finally crashed...He also messed up my newly waxed plane...

[anyuser 5,136]

Just an engine Fire.

That thing got a very strong wing structure, that is far away from the fire and the fueltank is far far away from it too.

That thing can burn for a very long time...

 

 

Btw, the plywood used for russian planes was very resistant to fire and damage in reality too. It was mixed with some kind of plastic, that made it this way.

And for japanese planes, it always depends on what does catch fire. As for all planes.

Fueltank fires are mostly death to them, except it is one of the very small ones.

Engine fires can stop.

Edited August 20, 2021 by anyuser

[HochgeborenKlown 1,276]

1 hour ago, anyuser said:

Just an engine Fire.

That thing got a very strong wing structure, that is far away from the fire and the fueltank is far far away from it too.

That thing can burn for a very long time...

 

 

Btw, the plywood used for russian planes was very resistant to fire and damage in reality too. It was mixed with some kind of plastic, that made it this way.

And for japanese planes, it always depends on what does catch fire. As for all planes.

Fueltank fires are mostly death to them, except it is one of the very small ones.

Engine fires can stop.

That was the first pass, I set 2 more on fire the next pass and then the plane he shot down set another one on fire, 4 in total...I backed off and watched...

[anyuser 5,136]

Yeah, and the engine fire on that plane has nothing for spreading. Fueltank and spar are way to far away. It could damage the wing surface, but without damage to the Spar it won't break. And the surface won't spread the fire.

You can kill all 6 engines of that flying pillbox by setting them on fire but that is what you did then.

Killing all 6 engines.

You might think they got an connection to the fueltank, but they don't.

 

Killing controls of one wing and damaging the surface isn't much better. In that case the planae can't be controlled anymore and will slowly lose altitude while flying big circles or even loops. It can't go anywhere, it is basically dead.

But not dead for the game and it can still shoot.

You have to set the fueltank on fire (not easy for some reason), break the wing (the spar is HUGE and strong), saw off the tail or kill the pilots.

 

For our current damage model with its isolated modules without connection to each other, the surface, where it only affects the FM when it is blacked and just air for the rest of the volume, the BV is simply to big.

It is like a big empty can. 

And it doesn't matter much to light up a candle on the edge.

Edited August 20, 2021 by anyuser

[SaxyOmega 1]

In multi-engine planes, fuel switches for each individual engine have pretty much always been standard. Fuel lines themselves won't catch fire unless punctured - there's nowhere for oxygen to get into a sealed line. Cut fuel to a burning engine, and the fire can easily run out of fuel before doing any additional serious damage - that's the point of the switches. So to discuss whether the game sees a connection or not between engines and fuel tanks, isn't particularly relevant.

The B17 in particular is famed for its ability to have its engines take substantial damage and cut out, then come back to life after being given time to cool down, including numerous reports of engines catching fire and later spinning back up at least with partial power. The B17 is not the only aircraft that was ever known to have survived engine fires though.

 

The majority of single-engine combat planes have a fuel flow switch too.

When I have an engine fire in a single-engine fighter, I usually shut down my engine and attempt to evade. If I'm at lower altitude that means diving to the treeline and swerving, or if I'm up high I just dive away until pursuit breaks and then stay as high as possible on a glide. Randos on my team pretty reliably lone wolf it and ignore me so I often can't escape if I'm not playing with friends, but when I do get away, I am killed by those fires probably only about a third of the time, and I imagine my preference for cutting the engine is why that is so low. More often than not I even get it running again, although typically quite a bit worse for wear.

I can't speak to how frequently fighters survived engine fires in reality, but considering how freaking many of them flew in the second world war, I can't imagine it was unheard of.

 

This is to say nothing of whether it's good for gameplay, which is subjective. Nor whether some planes are handled less realistically than others, which I don't know.

Edited September 14, 2021 by SaxyOmega

[anyuser 5,136]

I think you misunderstand.

Any kind of fire suppression system aside.

A plane is not "empty". Between the fueltank and the engine of the BV you would find several structures. Some can burn better some worse.

In Warthunder there is only air. There is not even the stuff that does connect the engine to the structure of the plane.

A plane in Warthunder is just an big and empty shell with some modules placed into that shell.

 

In Warthunder a fire got a certain "range". In this range it can damage other modules or it can even spread to those modules, if they can burn.

The gap between the engine and everything else of the BV is simply to big. An engine fire won't do anything.

Ok, it will damage the surface module. But this will not spread the fire, nor will damage to that part kill the plane. To break a wing you need to damage the spar. But the fire won't damage it. In reality a damage surface would lead to additional damage, based on how this damage is located to the airstream.

This does not happen in Warthunder too.

All 6 engines of the BV can be on fire until they are destroyed. It won't do anything to the plane itself, except 6 dead engines.

 

The current modeling of the planes and the damage model usage just break for the BV, because it is simply to big.

Edited September 15, 2021 by anyuser