Author Topic: Thoughts on .50 cals.  (Read 2136 times)

Offline JB73

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8780
Thoughts on .50 cals.
« Reply #30 on: July 11, 2005, 01:35:53 PM »
don't forget that the hit model in AHII is a vast improvment, and significantly different than in AH I

it was discussed in detail maybe 2 years ago, by Pyro and HT.

IIRC something along the lines of now AH tracks more points, and there is less "lienency".

i don't understand fully the details to explain it, but it is something along the lines of the "old" wing took a hit anywhere, it counted toward it's failure, and the "hit polygon" was very simplistic. now it is tighter, with more corners or something, and the "lazer .50" from 1.5k now ricchotes off a light angle or something.


i could be totally wrong in my explnation, but i know it is different.
I don't know what to put here yet.

Offline eskimo2

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7207
      • hallbuzz.com
Thoughts on .50 cals.
« Reply #31 on: July 11, 2005, 02:45:50 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by dedalos
ok, this whole ack killing with 2 20mms that don't even hit the target is kind of fubar (no offence fubie :D ).  You guys want me to believe that 2 20mms (cause that is all it takes) hiting 5 or more feet away from the ack gun will totaly desable it and make it explode?  Then you have the case where a plane can take 2 or more 20s on a wing and have no damage?  Not saing that it should or shouldn't but if 20s can kill a gun by exploding 5 feet away well, you can emagine what they can do to a wing.

Wana have some fun?
Go in the DA with a friend.  Get as close as you cant to his plane and fire your 20s.  You will die while he flyins away with no major damage.

Land with your gear up.  Fires a small burst of 20s on the runway and you can get to the tower without having to end flight.

I don;t know what the hitting power of a 20 or 50 should be, but ammo seems to have some issues.  Fits in perfectly.


I think that the cannon near yet lethal hits are representative of shrapnel killing the crew, setting off secondaries (ammo) or damaging the gun.  Look at the exposure of soft stuff near these guns.  I wouldn’t want to be manning one of these guns in a 20 mm hit 5’ or even 10’ away.









eskimo

Offline dedalos

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8052
Thoughts on .50 cals.
« Reply #32 on: July 11, 2005, 02:56:16 PM »
Eskimo,

you make it sound as if the 20mms had the power of a hand granade.  If thats the case, they should have the same effect on airplanes too.  If shrapnel is the issue, well, getting hit you or the other soft stuff by a 50 cal should also cause death.

YOur first pic has 9 guys manning the gun.  Hard to believe two 20s killed them all but 100 50s did not.
Quote from: 2bighorn on December 15, 2010 at 03:46:18 PM
Dedalos pretty much ruined DA.

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
Thoughts on .50 cals.
« Reply #33 on: July 11, 2005, 02:57:24 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by DamnedRen
Midnight,

I disagree. It USED to take 1/2 second burst on target with .50's do get the job done. Now its a full second, unloaded.

______________
Ren
The Damned



I have to disagree with you there.  At least in the P-38, the 4x .50 cals are very lethal.  I only use my machine guns at targets beyond 400 yards and when I hit a target at 400 to 600 yards out with a single burst of .50s, 9 out ot 10 times the plane is going down.


ack-ack
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline JB73

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8780
Thoughts on .50 cals.
« Reply #34 on: July 11, 2005, 03:00:16 PM »
the second pic by eskimo, with the single guy sitting in the gun, thats what at least the manned guns are in AH (or at least look strikingly similar too up close)
I don't know what to put here yet.

Offline dedalos

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8052
Thoughts on .50 cals.
« Reply #35 on: July 11, 2005, 03:15:53 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by JB73
the second pic by eskimo, with the single guy sitting in the gun, thats what at least the manned guns are in AH (or at least look strikingly similar too up close)


OK, I get it.  Spraing 100 50s at that guy will most likely miss him and not kill him.  Two 20s at 5 to 10 feet out will kill him every single time.  What was I thinking :rolleyes:
Quote from: 2bighorn on December 15, 2010 at 03:46:18 PM
Dedalos pretty much ruined DA.

Offline Murdr

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5608
      • http://479th.jasminemaire.com
Thoughts on .50 cals.
« Reply #36 on: July 11, 2005, 04:35:29 PM »
Regarding the P-38s 4X.50's.  At times Ive had a "wtf? he's not dead?" shot while film was running Ive went back and watched the film from exterior on the target plane.  Often Ive found that those particular shots were dispersed between the farthest and nearest points of the target plane, but sitting behind the guns in the cockpit it looks like a tight shot group.  You just dont have the angle or depth perception to see how concentrated the hits really are.

They are very leathal when a tight shot group isnt just an optical illusion.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Thoughts on .50 cals.
« Reply #37 on: July 11, 2005, 04:38:43 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by dedalos
OK, I get it.  Spraing 100 50s at that guy will most likely miss him and not kill him.  Two 20s at 5 to 10 feet out will kill him every single time.  What was I thinking :rolleyes:

Welcome to the world of linear damage models.  Stop whining.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline DamnedRen

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2164
Thoughts on .50 cals.
« Reply #38 on: July 11, 2005, 05:26:31 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Murdr
Regarding the P-38s 4X.50's.  At times Ive had a "wtf? he's not dead?" shot while film was running Ive went back and watched the film from exterior on the target plane.  Often Ive found that those particular shots were dispersed between the farthest and nearest points of the target plane, but sitting behind the guns in the cockpit it looks like a tight shot group.  You just dont have the angle or depth perception to see how concentrated the hits really are.

They are very leathal when a tight shot group isnt just an optical illusion.


Ok, that sounds fair. Now take a plane and begin shooting at 200 yds while saddled up. You still get large dispersion but it looks tight. Is this result that HTC has chosen to make the planes smaller that you would actually see in real life? You can say any size is the correct size but the limitations of the screen actually make the planes smaller than you would see them in RL, ergo, the tight group will "never" be seen at 200-300 yards because the whole view is too small. The only time you will see your tight group is while shooting a wall and when the magic convergence distance = the wall distance you see a tight pattern with no dispersion.

It's very easy to see. Take a pony up and fire at a water tower. The rounds are very dispersed when you first fire then begin to group tighter as you come into convergence range.

Unfortunately, the plane set visual clue is so small I don't think you will ever see the tight pattern on another plane.  Unless you ZOOM in. I gather that's what RL pilots did during a dogfight. I guess when thhey got into firing range they'd hit the zoom key so they could see the target and go for the shot. Yeah, that's what they musta done. :) I'm sure glad we have zoom so we can see what we would normally see in RL.

______________
Ren
The Damned

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Thoughts on .50 cals.
« Reply #39 on: July 11, 2005, 05:41:29 PM »
DamedRen,

FYI, the zoomed in view is actually not a zoom in, but rather a "make it approximately the correct size" feature.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline DamnedRen

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2164
Thoughts on .50 cals.
« Reply #40 on: July 11, 2005, 05:54:57 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Karnak
DamedRen,

FYI, the zoomed in view is actually not a zoom in, but rather a "make it approximately the correct size" feature.


You don't have to bother typin out damned ren...ren will do :)

What you said above sounds reasonable. But which part of the zoom equates to the correct size? :)

_______________
Ren
The Damned

Offline Murdr

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5608
      • http://479th.jasminemaire.com
Thoughts on .50 cals.
« Reply #41 on: July 11, 2005, 06:07:20 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by DamnedRen
The only time you will see your tight group is while shooting a wall and when the magic convergence distance = the wall distance you see a tight pattern with no dispersion.

It's very easy to see. Take a pony up and fire at a water tower. The rounds are very dispersed when you first fire then begin to group tighter as you come into convergence range.

None of that is an example of what I was saying.  The 38 has an 18 inch cone of fire.  Now of course the target and the gun platform are moving, but lets forget that for a moment.  Lets just hypothetically put that 18 inches just off center of a tail on a near true 6 shot.  In that 18 inch circle, you could hit anywhere down the side of the fusalage from the engine to the tail, the wing root, and some wing surface, the vert and horizontal stab surface, and their control surfaces.  No matter where those rounds hit, they will look like a concentrated circle of flashes from your POV.  The hits may have been spread out 30 feet along the side of the plane instead of 18 inches.

My point being, that some lethality issues are a matter of perception.

Offline Bullethead

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1018
      • http://people.delphiforums.com/jtweller
Thoughts on .50 cals.
« Reply #42 on: July 11, 2005, 08:06:20 PM »
Murdr said:
Quote
My point being, that some lethality issues are a matter of perception.


This is quite true.  Many times, when I've had like a 10-20^ tracking deflection shot, it's looked from my POV behind the sight like I've put every single bullet right into the cockpit.  And seeing all those hits apparently in the same place, I've checked fire to save ammo, thinking the bastard will fall apart in another second or 2 once lagged damage kicks in.  Then I've been very annoyed the bastard didn't die.  Maybe a piece came off, maybe he smoked, but he kept going.  This, mind you, is right at convergence range, because all the hits were practically in the same small spot in the 2D plane of the monitor screen.

HOWEVER, this seemingly lethal appearance ignores the 3rd dimension along the line of fire.  When I look at these films in an external view from a different angle, I see instead the hits are all along the plane's length, with some on the tailfeathers, some on the wing roots, and others spaced out all along the fuselage.  Never enough in any one spot to inflict immediately fatal damage, despite how it looked in the foreshortened POV at the time.  Thus, even when you fire at convergence range, you still have to fire long enough bursts to accumulate enough hits in 1 spot to do fatal damage, despite how it might look after just 1 second of fire.

As to the question of how you can determine the actual range under the new icon system, the old tried-and-true method is to put marks on your gunsight that line up with the wingtips of the typical fighter target at your convergence range.  To get the marks in the right spot, take a screenshot of an offline drone right at the correct range, as seen through your sight, and then put marks where its wingtips are.

This brings up the issue of determining your best convergence range.  It ideal is to set your convergence at a range where all your guns are very close to being converged for some useful amount of space on both sides of the specified range.  And to know that, you have to experiment with the .target XXX command.  Set your convergence for, say, 200, then see what the pattern looks like at 100, 150, 250, and 300.  Play around with the convergence setting until you can get a decently tight pattern for a space of about 100 yards.  This will vary from plane to plane depending on the types and locations of guns aboard.

Several months ago, I sent in some revised skins for the .target XXX target.  These had ass-view, full-size silouhettes of a spit and a B17 centered in them.  This would enable you to see how good your pattern really is versus the typical targets, because the simple rings on the target as we have it today utterly fail to provide that info.  Unfortunately, HTC hasn't seen fit to incorporate this into the game, and they have to do it because this isn't something you can incorporate on your own.

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
Thoughts on .50 cals.
« Reply #43 on: July 11, 2005, 08:45:00 PM »
Quote
you make it sound as if the 20mms had the power of a hand granade. If thats the case, they should have the same effect on airplanes too. If shrapnel is the issue, well, getting hit you or the other soft stuff by a 50 cal should also cause death.


 Well, not quite as powerful as a hand grenade, but its effects are essentially simular. The concept of HE cannons itself was derived in order to shoot down planes by tearing whole surfaces away with surface explosions.

 A 20mm can blow whole pieces of plane chunks off a plane. A 30mm shell, if planted and detonated insided a plane fuselage(simulating the 'ideal' hit), it will basically just blow up the entire rear fuselage of that plane.
 
 It sure as hell is more than powerful enough to kill/incapacitate flesh-and-bone entities with near impact.

 Not to mention that it does have simular effects on planes - a 20mm hit near the cockpit will more than likely cause you a pilot wound. A 20mm hit that enters the cockpit, will kill you with one ping.

 
Quote
OK, I get it. Spraing 100 50s at that guy will most likely miss him and not kill him. Two 20s at 5 to 10 feet out will kill him every single time. What was I thinking


 Perhaps you can ask HT to put a human 3D model at ack stations..  In this case, the chances of hitting the human dummy will be pretty good even for wing mounted .50s..

 So, maybe the acks can have a dual damage model?

 If the human dummy is what is hit, then the ack guns will stop fire, but regenerate in like 5 mins... if the gun itself is destroyed... then it will spring up like normal ack...

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Thoughts on .50 cals.
« Reply #44 on: July 11, 2005, 10:07:08 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by DamnedRen
What you said above sounds reasonable. But which part of the zoom equates to the correct size? :)

Heh.  That is why I said "approximately" as it will vary depending on the size of your monitor and how far you sit from your monitor.  There is, unfortunately, no way to get it just right.  I have a 21" monitor that I sit fairly close too and so max zoom will be bigger than max zoom on a 17" monitor, especially if the viewing distance is greater.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-