is this right or is it exploiting a bug?

[mechanic]

evidence A) http://www.freeroleentertainment.com/longrange1.wmv (will stream)



evidence B) http://www.freeroleentertainment.com/film209.ahf



tell me your opinion, is this exploitation of bad modling or practiced lead/gunnery estimation?

[Shane]

seems like decent gunnery, 38 guns nose mounted after all....

and if you took the big load of .50's you can afford to spray.

[mechanic]

thats the way i see it too.


but it seems that any kill over 800yrds is deemed BS or bad modling.

[mechanic]

the first slow-motion shows damge from 900+yrds. the range is obvious because seemingly no damage at all to the aircraft aside from the flap dropping off. Looking at the slow-mo closely shows that this flap would have been quite literally shredded off by tiny little 50cal holes. therefore on this i call good modeling, and concentrated fire proven as a method for longer range damage. this clip looks very similar to 303s dmage at 450+yrds.


the second part of the clip shows the slow-mo of the canopy shot, there is no doubt that more than 50 rounds hit the aircraft dead center along from tail to nose. i count 7 or 8 hits to the canopy itself and another 20 or so in the back of the cockpit and the left wing mounting.  again the range is obvious as the structural damge is very minimal yet one or two of those round almost certainly found the pilot. this hit was ranged 756 yrds at the point of explosion. again, good modeling, doesnt kill the plane but the pilot goes down like jelly. the Me110 has a huge amount of greenhouse for the pilot to eat lead through.


note also the angle of the crecent nose guns on the P38, they were lined up to give a line of fire down the length of the aircraft.

finally note how as the first few pings hit the 110 rolls over into the horde of bullets exposing itsself to yet more punishment.


clearly the damge model is very acurate indeed even at long range.

the only questionable thing is does anyone have the eyes and the judgment to make that in real life? i doubt it but then ive never flown a fighter plane.




edit:in no way am i saying, 'im l33t look at my gunnery' it was just one of those ones that went right. this is just well documented evidence of a good topic for the forum imo.

[mechanic]

good info ty.

 yet still it is right that this can be claimed as good 'shooting' in the AH world as apposed to a 'BS buggy i'm loggin in a strop thing' ?


and if you had as much practice in real life as you do here somehow, then maybe it would be so hard to kill someone at 800yrds with 4x50cal mgs going full on for long bursts. luck is obviously all it is in this world or a dream world. but still we should recognise that it is possible and it is modeled as accurately as possible, stop being so keen to use excuses when an enemy surprises you.

[Toad]

Larger or smaller in game?


More object size examples

[storch]

that is some good shooting.  here's the rub though, the other day in a 109G6 I shot a fleeing La5 with my last taters at a displayed distance of 600m.  I had 3 taters left to go. I had been chewing up the La5 with the 13mms but had depleted all 600 rds.  I suspect the La5 guy had a pw and placed his La5 in auto pilot.  I hit the combat trim on, zoomed all the way in for a good sight picture and let fly with the 3 taters.  to my great satisfaction two scored!!!  I was immediately greeted with a BS message. The fact is the guy is right it is total BS.  WWII fighter aircraft didn't have Leupold vari X scopes.  without the zoom there is no way I could have made the shot.  it's gamey.

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by storch
without the zoom there is no way I could have made the shot.  it's gamey.

If I remember correctly, HiTech once noted that zooming in fully represents the actual size of a target if you were flying in real life sitting in a cockpit.  So what you're doing is zooming in to what you would have seen with your bare eyes anyway.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Lye-El]

Yeah, I remember that too.

[Schatzi]

So what your saying is basically that: The zoomed in view is what youd see (more or less) IRL, the zoomed out view compensates for the fact that you need to display a whole cockpit on a 17'' screen.

Never knew that, just thought i was blind .


Edit: Leviathn, on your duel-film with Nomak you guys were talking about zooming. Now i was wondering, do you zoom in for snapshots, or do you stay zoomed-out for better SA?

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Schatzi
So what your saying is basically that: The zoomed in view is what youd see (more or less) IRL, the zoomed out view compensates for the fact that you need to display a whole cockpit on a 17'' screen.

[/b]

Exactly.  Using the zoom key is in no way gamey.

Edit: Leviathn, on your duel-film with Nomak you guys were talking about zooming. Now i was wondering, do you zoom in for snapshots, or do you stay zoomed-out for better SA?

I almost never zoom in for firing for a number of reasons, one of which you already mentioned.  First, as noted, zooming in substantially lowers SA.  That's not such a big deal in duels, but it is a huge deal in the MA.  Second, when zoomed in slight movements in the stick correspond to massive changes in position whereas slight movements while zoomed out yield almost no positional changes.  That means that when you fire zoomed out, you're doing so from a much more stable guns platform and are much less likely to miss due to minor stick adjustments.

It's mostly a matter of preference, but really the only time I'll ever zoom in is when I'm right on someone's six, and he's barely moving at all.  Otherwise I stay zoomed out.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[dedalos]

Originally posted by storch
that is some good shooting.  here's the rub though, the other day in a 109G6 I shot a fleeing La5 with my last taters at a displayed distance of 600m.  I

Hey, next time let them know it is you on their 6.  That would stop them from running

[dedalos]

Originally posted by mechanic
evidence A) http://www.freeroleentertainment.com/longrange1.wmv (will stream)



evidence B) http://www.freeroleentertainment.com/film209.ahf



tell me your opinion, is this exploitation of bad modling or practiced lead/gunnery estimation?

 Get over it man.  All I said yesterday was that "I" could not see at 900 yards.  If you can do it in a game thats fine, but the question was in real life.  If you compare it with real life, "to me", it is BS or pure luck.  Try hitting a target 9 football fields away while you both move at 300mph.  No need to go creazy on me just because I cant see that far, lol

However, the 110 was flying straight so that improves you chances of hitting it.  If the question was can the 50 do damage at that range, the answer is yes.  Is it realistick? no if you can do it everytime.  Once in a while yes, cause luck is realistic.

Non of this matters anyway because it is only a game.

[rshubert]

Well...

I don't think that is the actual case, lev.  You PERCEIVE that your stick movements are having a larger effect when zoomed in, but it is simply a perception.  he amount of movement produced by a particular stick deflection is constant, given a constant speed and initial attitude.

Just yesterday, I was out shooting my AR-15, scoped with a 3-9x variable power scope.  With it, I can "zoom in"on the target.

When I am zoomed in to 9x power, my heartbeat (!) causes a visible movement of the gun on the target--an inch or so, visible, at 100 yards.

When I am zoomed out to 3x power, that movement is not visible.  Did my heart stop causing the movement?  No.  It's my ability to perceive the movement that has changed, based on the angular size of the target in my sights.  The same applies in AH.

[storch]

See Rule #4, #5