Author Topic: Was there an FM change with v2.02?? (Read 2372 times)

wrag · « **Reply #30 on:** February 01, 2005, 04:17:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
As in my earlier post, I'm wondering if there isn't something in the arena's settings that allows some FM changes? Or something, some settings, that affcets flight dynamics?

There isn't any host settings regarding flight models except for stall limiter ranges. And we havn't changed those settings since 2.0 was released. [/QUOT]

TY SIR

Jester · « **Reply #31 on:** February 01, 2005, 09:40:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
As in my earlier post, I'm wondering if there isn't something in the arena's settings that allows some FM changes? Or something, some settings, that affcets flight dynamics?

There isn't any host settings regarding flight models except for stall limiter ranges. And we havn't changed those settings since 2.0 was released.

Hitech,
That may indeed be the problem.

Since AH2 we have had really strange problems crop up in the arena from time to time and no one seems to have a clue what is causeing it even though all the settings are correct.

Sikboy · « **Reply #32 on:** February 03, 2005, 11:39:29 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by storch

3. Get the ballisitics right.

What do you feel is wrong with the ballistics of the MG-151? I did a search on "Storch" and "ballistics" but didn't come up with anything. I'm sorry if I'm asking you to repeat information.

I only ask, because this is one aspect that I'm really interested in.

-Sik

storch · « **Reply #33 on:** February 03, 2005, 02:32:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sikboy
What do you feel is wrong with the ballistics of the MG-151? I did a search on "Storch" and "ballistics" but didn't come up with anything. I'm sorry if I'm asking you to repeat information.

I only ask, because this is one aspect that I'm really interested in.

-Sik

the mine round for LW cannon isn't even factored in. It derives it's destructive capability by whining and tiring the opposition....oops wait that's me, sorry. ahem it derives it's destructive capabilities from chemical energy as opposed to kinetic energy. It has the same damage potential at 400yards as it would coming out of the muzzle. I'm no eggspurt but Tony Williams is. google him. I'm just a pinhead who has far too much time on his hands.

Sikboy · « **Reply #34 on:** February 03, 2005, 02:51:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by storch
the mine round for LW cannon isn't even factored in. It derives it's destructive capability by whining and tiring the opposition....oops wait that's me, sorry. ahem it derives it's destructive capabilities from chemical energy as opposed to kinetic energy. It has the same damage potential at 400yards as it would coming out of the muzzle. I'm no eggspurt but Tony Williams is. google him. I'm just a pinhead who has far too much time on his hands.

I'm familiar with Mr. Williams' work. But, as far as I know, modeling the mine round wouldn't improve the ballistics of the MG151 by much. I believe (and this is according to Mr. Williams website, but I could be reading it wrong) the mine round is fired at faster MV, but is a lighter round. The increase in MV would be 80 M/S faster, but the round would wiegh 23 grams less. So, from my meager understanding, the improvement in ballistics would be slight at best.

What you're talking about is the actual destructive power of the round, which is a different creature entirely.

-Sik

hitech · « **Reply #35 on:** February 03, 2005, 02:53:26 PM »

And he is also incorrect about how we model destructive power.

We do model both explosive and kenetic energy of rounds.

HiTech

Sikboy · « **Reply #36 on:** February 03, 2005, 03:05:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
And he is also incorrect about how we model destructive power.

We do model both explosive and kenetic energy of rounds.

HiTech

I think that his concern is that all MG151 rounds are modeled at the same low % of HE content, whereas the Mine rounds had a much larger % of HE.

I have no idea how these were implemented in real life, or how they may or may not be implemented in AH2.

-Sik

Wotan · « **Reply #37 on:** February 03, 2005, 03:19:02 PM »

Quote

We do model both explosive and kenetic energy of rounds.

Aren't the rounds hybrids, in that the HE content is distributed across the belt rather then individually modelled.

That would mean the greater effect of a Minengeschoß round is diluted and then distributed across the belt.

From previous test on the A6M2 and 109E4 both the MGFF and Type 99 MK I lose a good % of lethality beyond 240 yards. Clearly this is a result of lower impact velocity. In close they are reasonably 'lethal'.

I don't recall LW belting off hand but if every 5th round of the MGFF is a M'geschoß that's 24.

The Brits rated the M'geschoß as about equal to the Hispano HE. 24 hispano rounds in AH can cause a lot of damage.

If my pressumption is wrong and M'geschoß rounds are modelled then they shouldn't loss lethality with range.

Maybe we can put all the speculation to rest if we could get an answer. I don't recall seeing one in the past.

Here's a good website on LW ammunition:

http://www.munavia-21.org/indedoc/Lw-Ammos.htm

storch · « **Reply #38 on:** February 03, 2005, 03:35:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
And he is also incorrect about how we model destructive power.

We do model both explosive and kenetic energy of rounds.

HiTech

If that were the case then the Axis and Allied cannon would have roughly the same destructive capability in the game which clearly they do not.

Sikboy · « **Reply #39 on:** February 03, 2005, 03:39:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by storch
If that were the case then the Axis and Allied cannon would have roughly the same destructive capability in the game which clearly they do not.

According to what Wotan posted, that's not the case. Not every round was a mine round.

-Sik

storch · « **Reply #40 on:** February 03, 2005, 04:03:13 PM »

so....... a 67% efficiency in the Axis cannon when compared to Allied is then justifiable? 1 mine round penetrating stressed skin and exploding within the airframe would cause considerably more damage than a kinetic energy round ever could, n'est pas? Yet it does not. Not in AH anyway.

You know what irrespective of what may have occured with the actual ballistics the game will be whatever HTC decides it will be. LW aircraft had ammo counters. Allied did not and resorted to placing 5 tracer rounds in each belt to notify the alert pilot that he was down to 300 rds per gun.

We have flaps on the 190 not being able to be deployed exactly at the speeds that the handbook said they MUST be deployed. The arguments back and forth are ad nauseum.

When someone (in oh Germany let's say) comes up with a more playable game and has faithful modelling for all countries represented in that venerable conflict then perhaps HTC will need to be concerned. Currently they don't have much credible competition so they may do as they deem fit.

Aside from all the grousing I do, I really enjoy the game, it just could stand some improvement on the modelling issue IMHO.

A player that hasn't been on line in AH for sometime advised me to check out WB again. It was reported that the CT arena there (or whatever it's called) is seeing between 50-200 players most nights and that the modelling is much closer but I have yet to play WB lately so I can't say for sure.

Sikboy · « **Reply #41 on:** February 03, 2005, 04:06:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by storch
so....... a 67% efficiency in the Axis cannon when compared to Allied is then justifiable?

I never said that, and we don't even know if that is what is happening. I was only pointing out that your post was incorrect according to what Wotan posted.

-Sik

Sikboy · « **Reply #42 on:** February 03, 2005, 04:25:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Wotan
Aren't the rounds hybrids, in that the HE content is distributed across the belt rather then individually modelled.

That would mean the greater effect of a Minengeschoß round is diluted and then distributed across the belt.

So, if I'm reading this right, the M rounds would lose much of their HE content, but the regular HE rounds would gain? The agregate remains the same, but the distribution changes? That's interesting. While perhaps not optimal (I'm not sure which I would choose if it were an option), that would at least account for the M rounds in a manner.

-Sik

Urchin · « **Reply #43 on:** February 03, 2005, 04:30:27 PM »

As far as I know, the ammunition in Aces High is modelled as an "average round" made by combining the damage potential of a bunch of rounds in a belt. For example, a typical LW belt was HE-HE-AP-AP-Mine (dunno if thats the actual order, or just the composition).

I crunched the numbers for that belting and Tony Williams "damage" for each round, they come out pretty comparable to my experience with AH.

The AP and HE rounds are so inferior to the Hispano rounds that the Mine round can't make up the difference.. so IIRC the MG151 is roughly 60% as effective as a Hispano.

Karnak · « **Reply #44 on:** February 03, 2005, 04:45:04 PM »

I would like to see individual round types modeled. It would reduce the generic feeling of guns.

I do not think that they should be player editable, unless strigent rules were applied. What would need to be blocked is belts comprised exclusively of the best ammo for that gun, such as a 100% MINE belt on an MG151/20 cannon. A good start would be to model the historically most common belt arrangements, and continue to allow tracer on/off at the player's discretion.