Aiming In Ostwind: An End to Vulching as a Viable Method of Score Padding

[pellik]

Originally posted by TalonX
Actually, the distance to the target when you pull the trigger is very important....  The projectile must cover all that ground while the target is moving to the side.....defined by sin B * V(t).     Also, as the projectile moves towards the target, the target moves away (extending the flight time of the projectile) at cos B * V(t), which adds to the flight time of the projectile.

Bottom line, holding all else constant,  the greater the distance at trigger pull, the greater the lead required.

That should put most of you to sleep!

Please note the lack of distance to target in that equation. What matters is the difference in the speed of your projectile vs. the speed of your target. That equation requires:
Angle off tail, which is the b. I don't know how you got that AoT relates to distance.

Speed of target.

Speed of projectile.

That is all.

The key here is that the ratio of distance travelled by airplane over distance travelled by projectile is constant. If the airplane's distance is increased the distance it travells will increase at the same ratio as the distance my projectile travels at increases, which is why the amount of lead remains constant.

Let's review some geometry.
Pretend, for simplicity's sake, the ratio works out such that  45 degrees of lead is required to hit a target that is flying at 90 degrees deflection (perpendicular) to us. We now have a right isosceles triangle, which has sides of length 1, 1, and 2^(1/2). If the target is now 100m away from us we just multiply EACH side by 100m, keeping the same triangle but just making it bigger. In short as long as the projectile travels 2^(1/2) times faster then an airplane which is at 90 AoT, the angles of the triangle will remain 45 45 90.

If this doesn't make sense I'll draw you some pictures when I get home.

[TalonX]

I could be talked into your math.  When I considered it a congruent triangle, the distance DIDN'T matter.....since the lead (in feet) increases in direct proportion to the distance, with a constant lead angle.

Of course, we are ignoring the third dimension, defined by the trajectory of the projectile, which is modelled.  It would be possible to aim perfectly, only to have your round pass under the target.

[bj229r]

numbers...suck. there's like, too many of em and stuff;

[Anchor]

Originally posted by Zazen13
Wow yea, that's nice and all but while you're doing math they're vulching your buddies. My method is the 'practical' way to hit stuff, no calculator required...

Zazen

Use the force, Luke!


Different techniques work for different people. If the plane blows up, consider it a success. I have a lot of success (luck) in an ostie at default zoom using the very tip of my mouse pointer as a targeting sight.

I don't know the math, but I get my fair share of kills.

If you have a a/c diving on you from say, 2.5K straight in, he will die 75% of the time before he gets to 1.5K if you "hide" his plane with your mouse using the very tip as a sight reference.

I have blown up planes that I never saw the ping because my mouse covered the plane.

As far as deflections, it is ALL feel for me. I concentrate on putting lead in his flight path, and let experienced guess guide my lead angle. If I'm on, I will get a lot of kills. When I'm off, I can't hit my arse with both hands.

My2cWorth

Skeeter0

[palef]

Well I used Zazen's methodology last night, and it worked instantly, first time I tried it. Boom! Dead 110, Boom! Dead F4U.

It felt instinctive too.

[TalonX]

Unbelievably, I have found the win win...

Pellik and Zazen are both right....



Example:   If the correct lead at 100 meters is 25 feet, you could calculate a lead angle....in this case: 4.3 degrees.

At 200 meters, the correct lead is 50 feet.....DOUBLE the lead, yet still 4.3 degrees.

Pellik was right  - the lead ANGLE is irrespective of distance to the target.

Zazen was right - if the target is twice as far away, you need to lead it TWICE as much (in feet).

[DREDIOCK]

The absolute most frustrating thing in an ostie is a plane can come right at you literally riding your bullet stream in dead center the whole way in and you wont hit it once even when it reaches point blank range.
Yet a quick burst of its 50 cal will neuter you.

I have better luck shooting down planes with the main gun on a tank. and even more luck shooting down planes with the pintle gun on a tank then I do in an ostie with the plane comming straight in at me

[AKFokerFoder+]

Originally posted by TalonX
Unbelievably, I have found the win win...

Pellik and Zazen are both right....



Example:   If the correct lead at 100 meters is 25 feet, you could calculate a lead angle....in this case: 4.3 degrees.

At 200 meters, the correct lead is 50 feet.....DOUBLE the lead, yet still 4.3 degrees.

Pellik was right  - the lead ANGLE is irrespective of distance to the target.

Zazen was right - if the target is twice as far away, you need to lead it TWICE as much (in feet).

In real life, the lead angle increases with distance due to the fact that a bullet is slowing down.  It has to expend energy to push the air out of its way.  That energy comes from the bullet velocity.  It is called drag, and is exactly the same as drag on an airplane.

That having been said, I don't think that the slowing down of a bullet is modeled in AH.  The math is very difficult, as change in velocity has to be taken from tables (it is not a smooth mathematical function)  Hatchers' Tables are a defacto standard for plotting velocity change.  If we don't take in consideration the bullet slowing down (and it is substantial) the lead angle is the same from zero to infinity.

Drop is another matter and I do believe that there is some modelling of that in AH.  However, if you don't factor in the change in velocity, then the drop will not be accurate either.

All that being said, the bullet trajectories we have work fine in a simulation.

It is a game, and a darn good'un to boot

[AKFokerFoder+]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
The absolute most frustrating thing in an ostie is a plane can come right at you literally riding your bullet stream in dead center the whole way in and you wont hit it once even when it reaches point blank range.
Yet a quick burst of its 50 cal will neuter you.

I have better luck shooting down planes with the main gun on a tank. and even more luck shooting down planes with the pintle gun on a tank then I do in an ostie with the plane comming straight in at me

I think the problem I have with the HO by a plane is that the bullet passes over the plane.  That is, the plane, even though it is flying straight at you, it is lower when the bullet gets there than when you fired the round off.  Try shooting just below the plane.

I don't use the Ostie much, but now and then I up one for a change of pace.  I get bored in them way too soon.  Either that, or I get killed and can't up another as the hangar is down.  All in all, with vh's being so easy to kill, it makes base defense hard.

[MOIL]

AKFokerFoder:
"Either that, or I get killed and can't up another as the hangar is down. All in all, with vh's being so easy to kill, it makes base defense hard"

Ya think!  singin' to the choir baby

[pellik]

Originally posted by TalonX
Unbelievably, I have found the win win...

Pellik and Zazen are both right....



Example:   If the correct lead at 100 meters is 25 feet, you could calculate a lead angle....in this case: 4.3 degrees.

At 200 meters, the correct lead is 50 feet.....DOUBLE the lead, yet still 4.3 degrees.

Pellik was right  - the lead ANGLE is irrespective of distance to the target.

Zazen was right - if the target is twice as far away, you need to lead it TWICE as much (in feet).

Zazen is sugguesting a fixed zoom keeping the plane at different parts of the screen. He is suggesting you use different angles.

[pellik]

Originally posted by AKFokerFoder+
In real life, the lead angle increases with distance due to the fact that a bullet is slowing down.  It has to expend energy to push the air out of its way.  That energy comes from the bullet velocity.  It is called drag, and is exactly the same as drag on an airplane.

That having been said, I don't think that the slowing down of a bullet is modeled in AH.  The math is very difficult, as change in velocity has to be taken from tables (it is not a smooth mathematical function)  Hatchers' Tables are a defacto standard for plotting velocity change.  If we don't take in consideration the bullet slowing down (and it is substantial) the lead angle is the same from zero to infinity.

Drop is another matter and I do believe that there is some modelling of that in AH.  However, if you don't factor in the change in velocity, then the drop will not be accurate either.

All that being said, the bullet trajectories we have work fine in a simulation.

It is a game, and a darn good'un to boot

I considered this. My conclusion was that if both the plane's speed and AoT are estimated then the effect of the dV of the projectile would be way smaller then your margin of error.

[sickbird]

So Pellik are you saying that Zazen's information is wrong, or that in theory it should be wrong?

Let's assume we have two targets at different distances both traveling at 90 degrees to our position at the same velocity.  For the purposes of aim, we have two indentical triangles, except that one is larger than the other.

Now, when aiming at the closer target, your eye would pick a point in space that  has less distance between it  and the target than if shooting at the more distant target (even though the angle would be the same).  Perhaps the game is simulating this.  I believe that is Talon's point.

[AKFokerFoder+]

Originally posted by pellik
I considered this. My conclusion was that if both the plane's speed and AoT are estimated then the effect of the dV of the projectile would be way smaller then your margin of error.

If you are talking about shooting from the hip, like we do in arial gunnery, perhaps.

But if you are taking a running shot at an Antelope at 400 yards, you will find your lead angle is greater than shooting at the same animal, at the same speed, at the same angle of incidence to the shooter.  Basically, the bullet will land behind him.

I'll have to dig out some of my reloading manuals and do the calculations.

Bullet slowdown is substantial, especially in Cannon rounds where the bullet coefficient is very poor.  As the range doubles, the time to target more than doubles (as one would expect in a linear model).  This time to target can be cause a miss on a 88 ft per second antelope.   Remember, at that velocity, the antelope will move 4.4 feet in .05 seconds.  What I am pointing out here is that a 20 millisecond difference means the antelope is 4.4 ft delta from where your original lead point was.  A 300 mph airplane would have mover 22 feet.

Again, I will have to get some bullet flight times to flesh this out.  Hopefully you can see where I am going.

Again, I doubt if HT models this, nor would I encourage him to do so.  It certainly wouldn't add much to game play.

[TalonX]

The fixed zoom is irrelevant, I believe.   The fact that he aims "twice as far" to the side for a target "twice as far away" means the angle is exactly the same, just the lead in feet is changing relative to the distance to the target.