Fixing HO in the game

[Toad]

Simple Fact Buzz:

This is at 15000 feet altitude, gunsite 3 feet above gun (a guess)on say a -51.

.50 BMG

Trajectory (Basic) Output

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Input Data
Muzzle Velocity: 2845.0 ft/sec
Ballistic Coefficient: 0.650
Drag Function: G1
Bullet Weight: 712 grains
Sight Height: 36.00 inches
Wind Cross Speed: 10 mph
LOS Angle: 0 degrees
Target Speed: 0 mph
Zero Range: 350 yards
Temperature: 5.5 °F
Barometric Pressure: 16.89 in Hg
Relative Humidity: 0.0 %
Altitude: 15000 feet
Air Density: 63 % of Sea Level


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calculated Table
Elevation: 17.594 moa
Azimuth: 0.000 moa

Range/ Velocity/ Energy/ Drop
(yards) (ft/sec) (ft-lbs) (inches)

0 2845.0 12795.7 -36.0
100 2754.8 11996.9 -19.8
200 2666.5 11240.1 -8.2
300 2580.0 10523.2 -1.4
400 2495.4 9844.3 0.1
500 2412.6 9201.6 -4.0
600 2331.5 8593.6 -14.0
700 2252.2 8018.8 -30.5
800 2174.6 7475.6 -53.8
900 2098.5 6962.1 -84.4
1000 2023.7 6474.0 -123.0
1100 1950.2 6012.8 -170.0
1200 1878.4 5577.9 -226.2
1300 1808.2 5169.1 -292.2
1400 1739.9 4785.5 -368.9
1500 1673.3 4426.6 -457.1
1600 1608.7 4091.3 -557.7
1700 1546.0 3778.7 -671.7
1800 1485.3 3487.7 -800.3
1900 1427.1 3219.5 -944.7
2000 1371.2 2972.3 -1106.2

At your 600 yard limit a .50BMG sighted in to be "on" at 350 Yards has a drop of just  14 INCHES and hits with just over 4 tons of energy.

At 1000 yards, it has dropped 10 FEET and hits with over 3 tons of energy.

Simple ballisitic facts from an unbiased ballistic equation.

So where do you arbitrarily want to make the bullet "disappear" from the programming?

It's no problem for HTC to track this bullet through our airspace. It's no problem to see if this bullet, on this trajectory, intersects the airframe of an aircraft in our airspace. That stuff is what computers do.

It IS a problem to account for the fact that most players here have most likely fired hundreds of thousands of more rounds than just about any real WW2 pilot. We can just discount player experience and expertise right?

It's possible that every little thing that affects a bullet's flight path isn't modeled here. It's probable.

It is unquestionably true that the data required by a relatively sophisticated ballistic model are present. It's unquestionably true that Pyro did a lot of careful work on the ballistics model here.

So you want to arbitrarily introduce other factors? Factors you can't really define or quantify? Let's throw in some "vibration"! How much? What force?

No thanks. I prefer what can be shown to be true.

Like the fact that a .50 BMG round has more than enough energy to easily penetrate a plexiglas conopy, remove the top of a pilot's head and exit the other side of the canopy at 1000 yards.

There are great games that have arbitrarily shortened the range of the weapons. I don't play them.

[Hangtime]

Winning a gunnery argument with facts is akin to winning an argument with a woman.

Yah better apologise immediately.

<S!> Toad. Nice one.  

[Buzzbait]

S! Toad

I want to thank you for proving my point with your tables.  As I said in my earlier posts, it is quite possible to find test figures for weapons which use 'ideals'.  This is what you are providing.  They are based on extrapolated calculations.  In fact in these tests, bullets were not fired at 15,000 ft at a target with the hit points exactly noted.  Nor was there any measuring device at this theoretical 15,000 foot target to determine the impact force of the round.  All these calculations are based on averaged ground level tests and adjusted for height.

Let's just deal with a few particular pieces of data which you provide from your 'ideal' test:

>>>>>>>>

Input Data

Muzzle Velocity: 2845.0 ft/sec

What you are quoting here is the 'ideal'.  In fact, Muzzle velocity will vary by round due the variations in the number of grains of explosive loaded in the cartridge as well as by the variations in the bore and rifling of the gun barrel.  Manufacturing techniques in the WWII era were not nearly as precise s they are now and especially with high production items like ammunition, quality control was considerably limited.  All of that would heavily affect the performance of a given round when compared with any other single round.  NONE of them were consistent.

Ballistic Coefficient: 0.650

Again, an ideal.  But I'll let this one go.

Drag Function: G1

Here's where the variations begin to pile up.  Drag Function as portrayed here is based on an 'ideal' bullet shape. But in fact, every single bullet leaving even a single gun will have slightly different characteristics in terms of shape.  These affect the flight of the round.  But it doesn't stop there.  There are many more issues related to drag.  Specifically each bullet which leaves the muzzle of a weapon will have a variation in the spin which is put on it by its contact with the rifling.  As a bullet makes its way down a rifle barrel, it is actually takes on fluid properties due to extreme heat and force.  Each bullet then interacts with the rifling in much the same way a drop of water would react when squeezed from an eye dropper.  In addition, as each bullet leaves the barrel, the spin created by the rifling is causing it to rotate in a slightly different fashion than any other single bullet.  The rotation of each bullet is never perfectly centered on the direction of flight.  Which means that the Drag Function varies as the bullet rotates, as it provides varying degrees of resistance to the wind.  This obviously affects the accuracy of a round and its flight path.
 
Bullet Weight: 712 grains

Once again, an ideal.  In fact each bullet is unique, variations can be as much as 5 grains.  Which throws out the 'ideal' again.  A bullet which weighs less than the ideal will perform in one way, one which weighs more will perform quite differently.  This can considerably affect things like Bullet drop.

Sight Height: 36.00 inches

No problem with this.

Wind Cross Speed: 10 mph

Very interesting.  So you are saying at 15,000 feet the wind blows at a steady 10mph at all times?  I think not.  Over a 200 yrd stretch of the atmosphere you are going to find an incredible variation in the speed AND DIRECTION of the wind.  Yes, direction.  Because the angle at which the wind blows is obviously a factor too.  Wind currents do not operate in a steady stream of perfectly aligned particles.  In fact studies show that wind activity is circular in motion, with vortexs rising and falling.  Not to mention gusting, as the wind picks up and loses speed.  Which is the norm and not the exception.  To find wind acting at all like what is portrayed in this 'ideal' scenario, you would have to go up to the height of the Jet Stream.  There speed and direction is relatively constant.  Too bad the Jetstream is not what we are looking at here.
Additionally, this test does not take into consideration the wind forces generated by either the target, or the firing aircraft's airframes.  Turbulence from the passage of an aircraft through the atmosphere is both violent and enduring.  A bullet passing through such turbulence will have its flight path altered considerably.  Which again affects accuracy.

LOS Angle: 0 degrees

Each of these proves my point.  Since when do you have perfect LOS angles?

Target Speed: 0 mph

Yep, all those planes fly at 0 mph.

Zero Range: 350 yards

Not a bad range to consider, since it is closer to what the real engagement ranges were.

Temperature: 5.5 °F

Another 'Ideal'.

Barometric Pressure: 16.89 in Hg

Ditto

Relative Humidity: 0.0 %

Ditto

Altitude: 15000 feet

Extrapolated.

Air Density: 63 % of Sea Level

'Ideal'.  Variations occur continuously in the atmosphere.  Air density is not perfectly calculable.

All these figures you have provided just go to prove my point that using 'ideals' does not provide an accurate picture of what a real weapon will do.

Well you ask:  "What's a game designer to do?  He can only go from the 'ideals'.  He can't factor in all the variations."

Right, he can't.  He has to use as his starting point the 'ideal'.  But after he arrives at that result, he then needs to take an additional step.

That would be to make a estimation of how much the variations in all the above factors, (plus many more which I could list ad infinitum) are affecting the overall accuracy of the round.

I think if the designers of AH did that, you would see much more realistic gunnery.

[Toad]

Well, Buzz, what Hangtime said, eh?

But hey, I'm bored.

So you are going to take the position that ballistics is not a well enough proven and established science? That they cannot provide equations that provide reliable data at altitude as well as sea level?

Man, I'd love to hear your other positions on scientific equations. So unless it has actually been tested and physically proven on the ground, it can't be relied upon? How DID we get to the moon, anyway? None of that way-out physics stuff is reliable, ya know.

As for minor variations in muzzle velocity, BC, G1, bullet weight, etc. I guess you'll tell me then that I can't pick up a retail box of .270 Winchester, sight it in at 100 yards and look at a published trajectory table showing me where every bullet will hit out to 400 yards right? Because every round is in some minor way a bit different, right?

Only problem is I've got a rifle that will group 1/2' at 100 yards with the 130gr Federals and I have a range that goes out to 500 yards. Guess what? The extrapolated trajectory table is right on the money. I've been shooting Federals in that gun for 15 years. Shoots the same year in year out.

What about the minor variations in ammo? They result in minor, unimportant variations.    

Here's some more bad news. It does the same thing with Remington 130's. Can't be right! Variations, of course. Sorry. It works well with either.

Wind? Did it ever occur to you that any two aircraft within 2000 yards of each other are almost guaranteed to be operating in the same air mass? The wind (all atmospherics) acts on the shooting aircraft, bullet and target aircraft in the same manner?

LOS Angle, Target Speed? Gotta laugh. You didn't go to the website did you? Admit it. You can input any LOS Angle and Target Velocity you choose. Oh, those crazy scientist guys! However, you don't need to do that in an ACM game. All you need to do is figure the "straight from the gun" ballistic equation. LOS, Target Speed are immaterial. Because the bullet flies its path, the target flies it's path and the host computer figures out if the two intersect over the duration of the trajectory.

Temperature, Baro Pressure, Altitude, Relative Humidity, Air Density? Yes, I just checked the "standard day" box. Did you miss that too? But guess what? Those are all user defined variables. So, your ACM game program could...well, you get the idea, I'm sure.

Go take a look at Hooligan's page comparing different rounds with MOVING targets (using the same exact ballistics page I pointed you to. Variable Target speed... how clever.)
 http://home.earthlink.net/~jayboyer/ballistics.htm


You want to ignore proven ballistics equations and "fudge" them with variables you can neither define, quantify nor verify in order to match the particular "memoirs" you deem "reliable".

No thanks. Still not interested.

As I said, there's several games out there with ballistics "fudged" pretty  much as you suggest. I'm suprised you are wasting your time on this one.

... Oh, no need to salute. I'm a civilian now.    

[ 07-01-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]

[Buzzbait]

S! Toad

You are using Commercial ammo loads, manufactured in the present day, with tolerances and precision not likely to be found in produced for gov't 1940 era ammo.

Second point is that you are firing from a stationary position at a stationary target.  Non of the variables in regards to moving aircraft apply.

[Buzzbait]

By the way, they put a man on the moon, using equations?  Yes partly, but those last 1000 metres were flown by the pilot.  Human.  You need that to deal with the variations.

[B52Charlie]

How much for that magic gun Toad? After 36 years of sport and angry shooting i've yet to find one of them. Everytime? after 15years? and out to 500 yards?  no matter what the wind conditions? BSBSBS . Oh and those non-important vaiables that buzz was discussing, thats what will determine whether you hit that target at 500yds or even 300 yards. Hell in your world Toad you can probably elevate your weapon 45 degrees and hit a tree bound running squirrel at 1.4 miles just because its listed on your expolated bs charts. Take that magic rifle out more than probably once every 15 years and fire it for real. I've been shooting for 36 years now both sport and in anger, its the other variables once mastered that will make the shot. By the way , try putting 10 rounds rapid though your rifle and then check that magic grouping with a hot barrel, just imagine 100 rounds or even 500 rounds through that magic gun in less than a min and then see if you're even hittin paper.

[Toad]

Buzz,

Use a search engine and check out some of the .50 BMG pages. Those guys are using surplus .50 BMG ammo in rifles and getting very decent groups. Yes, it's a rifle but nonetheless the ammo is performing adequately.

As to YOUR second point, you were the one highlighting minor differences in ammunition, like a grain in weight of the bullet. For testing ammunition, you isolate everything else you can, no? So that you are only observing changes wrought by ammunition?

My position is that for shooting at a target that is 45 feet long at 600+ yards, a grain or two of powder or a grain or two of bullet weight isn't going to make a noticeable difference.

You're simply trying to change your argument now.

Ever go ahead and actually visit the web page? Pretty nice User Defined variables, eh? How about Hooligan's page doing the comparison?


B52,

No the physical range itself is a 500 meter range. You can set targets every 100 meters. The gun is exceptionally accurate, always has been. The funny thing is that it's the "cheap" model of the Model 70. Has a real heavy barrel. BTW, I've had it 29 years now and it's not for sale.     My high dollar guns usually shoot right around an inch or a bit less, after I tune them.

My point is that I sight it 3" high at 100 and it follows the trajectory tables. It does shoot into 1/2" at 100, 3 shot group, 1 minute spacing. And it does it with two types of commercially available ammo. I quit handloading for this gun. I simply couldn't do any better than the Federals or Remingtons. Buzz's point was that ballistic equations can't be relied on for accurate predictions of trajectory. You want to talk BS?   THERE'S some BS.

You aren't the only one that's done extensive shooting, BTW.

Long ago in beta there was one fellow that told me that it was impossible to hit a running bull elk at 400+ yards because of all the "variables". He was real vehement and insulting in his posts also.

Would you like to make that statement too?    

And we don't need MOA groups from an MG anyway. When you're shooting at a JU-88, it's a bit larger than a square foot of paper.

JU-88
Wingspan: 20.1 m
Length: 14.4 m
Height: 4.8 m
Wing area: 54.5 sq. m

Neither one of you would deny that these MG rounds travel 2000 yards+ while still maintaining enough energy to do serious damage. The actual ballistics of the round are not in question.

Yet you want to fudge a game's ballistic program with undefinable, unquantifiable, unverifiable variables until they "SEEM" right to you.

Should we do that with the FM's too? Start fudging them till they "seem" right?


You guys want guns that shoot 200 yards? There's a game out there just waiting for you. Why torment yourselves? Be happy!

[ 07-01-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]

[Buzzbait]

S! Toad

Once again, you are trying to put words in my mouth, trying to present your interpretation of what my points are.

The facts are, whether you choose to accept it or not, there are MANY variables out there which affect gunnery accuracy which CAN be quantified, and which are not covered under standard controlled test situations.

If Simulation modeller chooses not to take them into account, then the Sim he produces will see results which are significantly better than could be expected under actual conditions.

If you are happy flying in a Sim which delivers gunnery based on 'ideal' situations, then fine.  I prefer to aspire to something closer the reality of the WWII period.

[Creamo]

The reason Headons are so lethal is that the accuracy of the AH weapons is way too high. Fix the dispersion and the whines about HO's would cease, as would the screams about C-Hogs.

I'll let you and Toad have at the stats and equations Buzzed. I'd just like to point out that the icons in AH are radar range finders, which increases accuracy 10fold. I don't see a work around the icon issue, so I don't argue about it. Monitor limits vs. the real thing, that problem.


The other thing is, guys in AH have "virtually" shot down thousands fighters in the game online, and practicing off line. That gives you quite abit of a advantage for success compared to say a real pilot in WWII on his 6th sortie toejamting in his pants dodging Zero's.  

I think the gunnery/lethality is very, very close to reality, if not the damage a little to lite. I've seen a whole lot of aircraft damage in the last 15 years, and it never ceases to amaze me how much damage little things do to aircraft.

Cannon and MG's must have been a real son-of-a-squeak.


--

[ 07-01-2001: Message edited by: Creamo ]

[Toad]

Originally posted by Buzzbait:

Once again, you are trying to put words in my mouth, trying to present your interpretation of what my points are.

As if you didn't do the exact same thing.  

Feel free to list, define, quantify and give us a verifiable equation for the things you think are missing in this ballistics/gunnery model. I look forward to it.

[Toad]

Well, start with vibration then.

You know... how much each different plane should have its guns vibrate; the different value for each plane between cowl mount, enging mount and inner-wing vs outer-wing mounts. Probably want to include the effect of varying airspeed over the wing for wing mounts too.

Just define, quantify and come up with an equation so HT can program it. It would be a start.

Oh, yeah... make sure your source data can be verified and that you get the same values when you repeat the experiment under the same conditions.

Like a good ballistics program does for trajectory.

 

Oh, yeah.... <S>

[ 07-03-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]