303's ....

[Stoney74]

Personally, I'm all for it.  I hate being sniped by 20mm at 800 yards.  The biggest challenge would be to develop a calibrated gunsite.  Maybe have a gunsite calibration slider much like the convergence setting in the hangar.  Set the gunsite to where a standard sized fighter fills the ring at 300 yards, and voila.  No need to guess the range, when it fills the sight, its at 300 yards.  That's the way it was done historically.  The K-14 actually had a handle on the throttle to twist the range desired into the reticle.

I'm all for it.  Anything to take away "gamey" aspects.  I realize the way the damage model is set up, and can buy into it for gameplay purposes.  But I hate reading books where guys say firing beyond 300 meters is useless, then seeing guys in the game spraying ammo at 1000 meters in the chance their cannon round catches you and pops your tail off.

[Knegel]

Originally posted by Stoney74
But I hate reading books where guys say firing beyond 300 meters is useless, then seeing guys in the game spraying ammo at 1000 meters in the chance their cannon round catches you and pops your tail off.

But thats not unrealistic in general!

The USAF did rate the Hispanno 20mm with max 2400yard theoretical range and 1200 yard practical range.

I have no doubt that it is possible to hit a plane on 1km distance, but same like in the game this need some luck and a absolut strait flying target.
If the target bank smoth from right to left its not realy common to get shot down on 1km distance, even on 400yard it need much ammo or luck. Lag also is a problem here, your attacker may see you on 600, while you see him on 800 or even 1k distance.

Even in a H2H game with unlimited ammo its not easy to kill someone on 1k disatnce, if he dont fly strait.

The normal shooting range in AH is 100-500 yard, above 500 yard it need many guns, many ammo or a strait flying enemy to get a kill, for me this sounds credible.

Imho the bullte trajectory is to strait for some guns. The Hispanno bullets seems to fly almost strait up to 1k, this seems to make the long distance kills on strait flying targets quiet easy, cause no lead is needed.

But never forget: We have much more training and therefor a much higher skill than any WWII Ace(at least regarding shooting).

I dont would like to see a unrealistic difficult DM. We need to measure the credibility of the gunnery on the flightsim newbes(the 1st 2 month), not on us superskilled aces (with 10.000 death on the clock until we got where we are).

Look to most guncam films, if Marsaille would have wobbled around like most pilots do in this films, he would have needed a complete ammoload to bring down a Hurri. Most WWII pilots was rookis and never got above this skill. Looks what a rooki in Ah do(even if he did play other flightsims before): He cant kill anything and he die very fast!

There are plenty of storys about 500m kills, but most aces thought: Why shooting from 500m, when i can sneak in to 50m, where the hitprobability of course is more big and where the guns have more punch??

For people who wanna have it less gamy i would like the POSSIBILITY(option) to dissable all icons(determined by the host for all players)!
This probably would solve many problems, cause only then disengaging like in R/L would be possible and shooting with very high deflection would be more luck(currently the plane can be hidden behind my cowling, but the icon still show the position).

Greetings,

Knegel

[Kweassa]

Since I'm no expert in this theme I'm not sure how to put it, but it is what I call a classic case of "technical realism vs. situational realism".

 The actual 'likeliness', or 'probability' of gaining a kill is something entirely different from the concept of 'practical range', which takes into account not much more than a few mechanical and theoretical conditions. However, aerial gunnery is often dynamic, with many more factors than just mechanical - everything range from the psychological to the condition of the air, and etc etc.

 One very typical example appears from your own post;

The normal shooting range in AH is 100-500 yard, above 500 yard it need many guns, many ammo or a strait flying enemy to get a kill, for me this sounds credible.

 Indeed, having more armament, more ammo, and most importantly a more powerful gun (hence, the 'relative advantage' of 50cal/20mms over the 30cals) does make it more likely for the attacker to shoot down an enemy plane over 400 yards distance. This is where the term 'spraying' comes forth. However, just how compelling is it for the attacker to take a shot at an enemy plane at such distances?

 In AH you know how far the enemy planes is out in front of you. You have exact information on how much ammo you have left. Therefore, your eagerness in taking a long-ranged shot is much higher than in real life. The frequency of taking shots is much higher in the game, which by itself is another factor that increases the hit probability. Whereas in real life, without any direct information concerning distance and ammo conditions, a pilot would be seriously discouraged from taking a shot under those conditions.

 In other words, we are provided with such information that did not exist in real life, that effects each pilot to attempt long distance gunnery with much higher accuracy and confidence than ever possible for a real life pilot.

 A very helpful, direct comparison would come from playing another game, IL-2/FB for example, in a multiplayer session that removes all icons from the game. The very need to identify friend or foe, the lack of info on the status of your ammunition and relative distances - all these factors bring out a very different tendency in game pilots. These are psychological factors that effect the reality of aerial gunnery.

 

But never forget: We have much more training and therefor a much higher skill than any WWII Ace(at least regarding shooting).

 This is perhaps the most over-used and over-rated reasoning in defense of 'gamey gunnery'.  Again, take IL/2FB for example. You could play in two different multiplayer sessions for direct comparison - one that has icon settings similar to AH, other that has no icons at all. The same people in same planes in the same game, and yet they react astonishingly different under different settings.

 When there are icons with distance indicators around, IL-2/FB isn't all that much different from AH. People take pot-shots from some 300~400m out and it still brings down planes in such settings. However, take away the icons and and everything suddenly changes.


 This is not an issue concerned with tech realism. Whether a gun is potent enough to bring down a plane at 1000 yards or not is absolutely meaningless. The only thing that has meaning is the probability of it all, and if it is more probable in the game than in real life, then it means the game clearly lacks some important factor that was present in real life, which inhibits such instances from happening.

 Tony Williams has set down a rule of thumb, as a result of his studies in guns and aerial gunnery. 200m max for fighters, and 400m max for bombers - both flying straight and level.

 AH has a 'killing range' that is approximately 200 yards further than in real life. It means AH is missing some factor that accounts for that critical 200 yards, and my explanation for it is the 'psychological factor'.

1) The anxiety, the worry of running dry of ammo during long engagements
2) The reluctancy to try a shot against a target which you do not have range info
 
 These two real-life factors are responsible for the creation of the legendary maxim of fighter pilots;

 "When you think you are close, get in closer".

- ... since you can never be truly sure how far the enemy is out. Give up 'foolish attempts' to snipe your target out from afar, and get in close ranges so distance (and convergence, as well) loses meaning.

- ...since long range shots are usually a waste of ammo, and going dry during combat usually means you are defenseless. Get in close and take short controlled bursts, instead of spraying out from a distance.


 ...

 In turn, it is the lack of these very factors that makes the maxim unnecessary and non-existant in AH. Therefore, logic dictates that by removing the ammo counter from the plane, factor 1 is brought into the game. By removing the distance numbers from the icons, factor 2 is also brought into the game. (The +/- icons are enough for judging relative E state and closure/departure rate)

 If people still take 400~600yards shots under those conditions, and so often brings down enemy planes, then I'll admit that us gamers really do have superhuman gunnery than compared to real pilots.

 But until then, I call the "we play more games, so we have better skill" theory bullshi*.

[Angus]

I really shouldn't say this, but...
The gunnery model in Il-2 is quite good.
Opinions?

[Angus]

Some aerial gunnery here. No vital parts falling, but one good flamer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0kmUwp1TKk&mode=related&search=
More flamers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdAtIRef7I0&mode=related&search=

[Odee]

 Bang on Kweas, you go the right of it!  Something else to consider about all those aces from WW2 is, they were all hunters who's shooting skill in the field was used to put food on the table.  Many of them attribute that one fact to their air marksmanship.  Indeed, this is why the flying military uses (used?) Skeet practice to help instill a natural sense of deflection and leading the target.

Angus, as usual you have provided some excellent film footage.  Especially the 51's propaganda one.  Keep at it man.

[Angus]

Hehe, the 51 footage was Hollywooded, but there were sure some good attacks.
I have been at the IWM film archive in London looking at Guncam films from 1944. Those were from P51C's, Spitfires (if I remember right) and Tempests/Tiffies.
You had blow-ups and aircraft rapidly losing control and crashing into the ground.
It would be a hell of a job to compare those with the LW loss archives, which do not match, - but it's hard to debate a film showing a 190 slamming into the ground you see....

[Knegel]

Originally posted by Kweassa

 This is perhaps the most over-used and over-rated reasoning in defense of 'gamey gunnery'.  Again, take IL/2FB for example. You could play in two different multiplayer sessions for direct comparison - one that has icon settings similar to AH, other that has no icons at all. The same people in same planes in the same game, and yet they react astonishingly different under different settings.

  Tony Williams has set down a rule of thumb, as a result of his studies in guns and aerial gunnery. 200m max for fighters, and 400m max for bombers - both flying straight and level.

If people still take 400~600yards shots under those conditions, and so often brings down enemy planes, then I'll admit that us gamers really do have superhuman gunnery than compared to real pilots.

But until then, I call the "we play more games, so we have better skill" theory bullshi*.
 
[/i] theory bullshi*.

Hi,

if you think its oversused and overrated, you should look to the MUCH increased hitquote due to the new computed gunsights at the end of the war.

I guess Tony Williams rule of thumb is made for a "normal"pilot, not for a real Ace. Hartmanny, Marsailles and Ralls wingmans told that this guys shot and did hit on 400+ meter.

But i agree that something is AH is missing, at least for us oldhands, its the fear to die and to miss a target, its the excitation born out of the greed to get a kill and the possibility to miss etc.
Newbes have all this and they also miss like the real Aces. In a competition many oldis also have this and they fail under presure, where they would hit in training mission.

In IL-2 many people shoot better with icons, simply cause the middle distance graphis is very bad, as result its almost impossible to see if the plane is in 400 or 800m distance, with some planes its difficult to see them at all. But if you once got aware of this, 600m kills are not that difficult in IL-2, also without icons(My squad mainly play IL-2 without or only with short range icons).

In EAW, where the middle distance graphics are far better, its good possible to estimate a distance without the need of icons.

For people who once are used to play without icons and ammo counter, long range kills are same easy like with icons. Very fast you get a feeling for the distance and also for the number of left rounds. In games where the host can determine if icons or not, i preffer to play without icons and even in AH i often dissable the icons to be better able to see what manouver my oponent just make. This dont hinder me to shoot from 500+ yard, if i see him flying smooth, while i also try to follow the rule to get in as close as possible, simply cause then i can get a fast clean kill with smal ammo, not only a smoking plane or a wounded pilot.

Read some more storys about the shooting skill of the aces who did prefer to shoot from longer range. Rall, Marsaille, Graf and even Hartmann was known to shoot very good from long range.
The rule to get in as close as possible cant count while a dogfight where the enemy saw you, where you dont have the time to close in and not all aces did like Hartmanns rules, cause they did fear to collide.  

Compare the shootingskill of a combatsim newbe with a AH oldi, no matter if icons or not, the newbe will have a pretty similar hitquote like most real WWII pilots, but after some hundret missions this will change, at some point he will get the hang on it, same like most real aces did need quite a time, but after many thousand, rather hundret thousand possibilitys to shoot, its absolutly normal to be better than any real WWII pilot.

I think Hartmann is one of the fighter pilots with most combat missions in WWII, if i remeber right, that was around 1400, and 700 with contact. So lets say he had 1000 possibilitys to shoot to a plane, thats already a lot, and related to this his skill was.
With luck the normal pilot did survive maybe 100 mission and if he had luck he did survive  50 with contact. How good your shooting skill was after 50 possibilitys to shoot to a plane??
Get a Flightsimulator Cessna pilot to play AH and see how good his shooting skill is after 20 and then after 50 mission.

Iam playing in the H2H area mainly, there you will see many newbes, not able to hit anything. Many times i did read something like " WOAAAA, i got my 1st kill, and i play AH since 2 weeks".

In EAW is the same, newbes complain to difficult gunnery and ask for unlimited ammo, while oldis get 3-8 kills with one 109F ammoload.

One of my EAW mates did test AH after i told him about it, but he thought that the planes are much to unstable, he coulnt hit anything and left frustrated.

Greetings,

Knegel

[Angus]

Here's a goodie for you Knegel. Or some rather..
1: Marseille shot his opponents down at close range while stall-banking, with very good accuracy on the cockpit and engine.
2: Rall was famous for wild deflection shooting, and has be mentioned as the finest shot of the LW in the period. He himself modestly claims that Marseille was the finest shot.
3. Guys like "Screwball" Beurling were also phenomenal shots, - and mind you, that the guns were located in the wings, so there was no central benefit as in the 109. He did indeed kill an enemy aircraft with 5 hits, and was actually saying that he hit the enemy aircraft with 5 hits around the cockpit. It was true.
4. Getting into wing mounted guns, the record must be the "lucky 13", where a Spitfire downed 2 190's (AFAIK) with only 13 rounds fired from each of it's cannons.

So, here endeth the Saturday cookie. Enjoy

[Tony Williams]

I agree with Kweassa, allthough what I actually put in the "Effectiveness" article was this:

"It is sometimes argued that a projectile with a high muzzle velocity and a good ballistic shape (which reduces the rate at which the initial velocity is lost) provides a longer effective range. To some extent this is true, but the greatest limitation on range in air fighting in the Second World War was the difficulty in shooting accurately. The problem of hitting a target moving in three dimensions from another also moving in three dimensions (and probably at a different speed and on a different heading) requires a complex calculation of range, heading and relative speed, while bearing in mind the flight time and trajectory of the projectiles. Today, such a problem can easily be solved by a ballistic computer linked to a radar or laser rangefinder, but at the time we are examining, the "radar" was the human eyeball and the "ballistic computer" the human brain. The range, heading and speed judgements made by the great majority of pilots were notoriously poor, even in training. And this was without considering the effects of air turbulence, G-forces when manoeuvring, and the stress of combat. These factors limited the effective shooting range to around 400 m against bombers (longer in a frontal attack) and against fighters more like 250 m."[/B]

That does not mean to say that kills could not occasionally be achieved at longer distances by average pilots, or quite regularly by exceptional ones. It is noticeable, however, that the same few aces keep being mentioned as being capable of such feats. I think that such skillful pilots were very rare.

There is one other psychological factor (apart from lack of information) indicated in the extract above: combat stress. One thing which no sim can ever replicate is the knowledge in the back (or maybe the front) of every WW2 pilot's head: that if he got it wrong, he was liable to be killed. Really dead. With no possibility to reset and start again. That acted to concentrate the minds of a few pilots (the good ones) but destroyed the judgement of many.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[Knegel]

Hi Tony,

"I think that such skillful pilots were very rare."
Yes, they was rare for sure, but they are not rare in the flight sim communitys and thats the point.

I know many people, including myself, who are able to estimate distances and the needed lead while deflection shooting very good, and even more important, they(we) are able to estimate a perfect attacking course, including possible evadingmanouvers of the attacked one.

When i got a online connection in late 2000, i already did play EAW for 2 years, before this i did play X-wing, SWOTL, AirwarriorII and their finest hours until i could fulfill all offline missions with success.
At  this point i probably had 100 times more possibilitys to shoot to a target than any WWII pilot, but online all was different. Enemys made unknown evading manouvers and they shot me out of the sky from for me unbelievable distances and deflection angles, with a minimum of ammo(very short tracerline).

So i was sure they cheat! (shame on me)

A half year and at least 3000 kills and probably same number deaths later i had the same skill and others called me cheater.

Thats why iam sure, we need to look to virtual pilots with a similar ammount of training like the real pilots had, to value a damagemodel/gunnery of a flightsim!

And if i see the newbes in AH, i cant see a to easy gunnery.

In the H2H area rarely a host keep the default ammoload, simply cause the people (many newbes) get frustrated, if they need to land always without ammo or after only 1 kill.

Greetings,

Knegel

[Kweassa]

Yes, they was rare for sure, but they are not rare in the flight sim communitys and thats the point.

 Again, this is a mere assumption, and a very crude one. The amount of individual skill gained does indeed coincide somewhat with time and experience, but it is not unlimitedly exponential. Repetition makes certain parts of aerial gunnery more familiar, thus assisting in overall judgement, but that does not mean more sorties and more kills directly feed into one's own score.

 If we buy into that kind of logic, the same can be applied to overall situational awareness and defensive maneuvering also. More sorties mean better aim for the attacker? Fine. Then it also means better maneuvering on the part of the defender(!). In theory, these contradictions would result in a zero sum, as follows;

There's no reason gunnery distances should be so different from real life, since even if game pilots could aim better, they could also defend themselves better. The advantages gained in gunnery would be neutralized. Even if some game pilot is skilled enough to snipe targets from 500 yards, the defending game pilot would be skilled enough to jink and maneuver away from 500 yard shots with inhuman level of defensive maneuvering, thus making it necessary for the game pilot to get in as close as possible as in real life. Therefore, AH gunnery tendencies would become no different than in real life, no?

[/i]

 The problem with these kind of assumptions is that it has no solid basis whatsoever. Those are literally assumptions, derived from the need to explain why in-game gunnery is so different from real life. How do we know just exactly how much skill level is gained with each minute spent in the game? It's a wild goose chase.

 The only thing we have that is viable for comparison is the fact that a component exists in the game that did not exist in real life, in the form of icons and ammo counters (and a few more). How can anyone treat these obvious, material evidence as something secondary, while relying on something so immaterial and intangible as 'pilot skil'l to be the primary reason in differences in gunnery?

 There are many factors in real life that are missing in the game. If we were to come up with explanations that has no tangible substance for objective comparison (such as the "game pilots are more skilled" theory), then it would not be too late to rely on such explanations only AFTER such missing factors are introduced into the game, instead of relying on it in the first place while so many factors are missing.

 Again, get rid of the ammo counters, get rid of the distance indicators. Then we'll have something to compare, since game conditions would more closely match reality. Only then will it be really possible to see if gunnery is so different for game pilots.


ps) Obviously your "squadmate" has a very different IL2/FB experience from mine. The only instance where I ever got a kill over 400m in that game was when a lucky Hispano II round set fire to a Bf109G running straight and level.

 In all of my days flying in most of the IL2/FB's most renowned open servers, never have I met anyone who shoots people down regularly at over 200m distance without range info specified in the icons, nor have I myself been regularly shot down under such circumstances. Freak shots and desparate spraying does happen, and when unlucky such hits will bring you down - but I can hardly say that it is the 'norm' in that game, unlike in AH.

 When do I know I am going to be shot down in IL2/FB? When I see the enemy plane at the corners of my eyes, right behind me. Not when I see him at 400m.

[Odee]

Grab some popcorn, a pop, and enjoy the shows...
This is an excellent film document on how the 109 pilots were taught to fight the Spits... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBm86lrCq2c

Of course, this was made quite a bit after the war, but you get the idea of air tactics with real planes.

Also, in the side panel there, you'll find some great WINGS footage of the Hak P6E and others from Duxford airshow.  

[Knegel]

Hi,

nice video Odee, where do it comes from?? Where they got the 109F or G from??

Originally posted by Kweassa
If we buy into that kind of logic, the same can be applied to overall situational awareness and defensive maneuvering also. More sorties mean better aim for the attacker? Fine. Then it also means better maneuvering on the part of the defender(!). In theory, these contradictions would result in a zero sum, as follows;........................

Here you hit the nail!!

At least my evading manouvers(if i see the enemy) are good enough to dissapoint most attackers, even with the soooo easy AH gunnery, specialy on ranges above 300 yard.
But it looks like many people have more fun to attack than to evade. They use high bases, if available, instead of fighting into a high position out of a disadvantage, they use Tepestrs and La7´s or any other advanced plane.
I saw some A6m5 pilots who land regulary 5-8 kills(unlimited ammo), this shouldnt be possible, if its sooo easy to shoot all down.

Originally posted by Kweassa

 The problem with these kind of assumptions is that it has no solid basis whatsoever. Those are literally assumptions, derived from the need to explain why in-game gunnery is so different from real life. How do we know just exactly how much skill level is gained with each minute spent in the game? It's a wild goose chase.

I think i gave pretty many examples, but again: Look to the newbes, and regarding newbes i dont mean someone who just got the the 1st flightsim, i talk about people who have maybe 100-200 fights, just like most real pilots had.
And the gain due to training i VERY big, specialy if it comes to long range shots.
 

Originally posted by Kweassa

Again, get rid of the ammo counters, get rid of the distance indicators. Then we'll have something to compare, since game conditions would more closely match reality. Only then will it be really possible to see if gunnery is so different for game pilots.

ps) Obviously your "squadmate" has a very different IL2/FB experience from mine. The only instance where I ever got a kill over 400m in that game was when a lucky Hispano II round set fire to a Bf109G running straight and level.

 In all of my days flying in most of the IL2/FB's most renowned open servers, never have I met anyone who shoots people down regularly at over 200m distance without range info specified in the icons, nor have I myself been regularly shot down under such circumstances. Freak shots and desparate spraying does happen, and when unlucky such hits will bring you down - but I can hardly say that it is the 'norm' in that game, unlike in AH.

 When do I know I am going to be shot down in IL2/FB? When I see the enemy plane at the corners of my eyes, right behind me. Not when I see him at 400m.

In IL-2 not many people try to hit on long range, cause the planes are very smal(bad visible), but once you got used to it, you will find that kills are as easy as on 50m distance, though not the clean kill.  Cause a unknown reason the hitprobability seems to increase with the distance in IL-2. At least some guns (specialy .50cal and the allied cannons) have a very similar behaviour like the AH HispannoII and MK108(before the last update).

btw, in IL-2 with icons and range there isnt a different, people still dont shoot at this distances, simply cause they have so much problems on close range, they seems to think on long range it must be impossible, but its not.

In IL-2 i get most kills(rarely a clean kill though, most the planes only get damaged) while a snapshot from impossible positions. Often from 300-500m with very high deflection(the enemy dissapear behind my cowling).

But i must admit, i didnt play IL-2 for some time now, so it might be different today(the damage and flightmodel changed a lot fro patch to patch).

And i agree that IL-2 is more difficult regarding the gunnery in general, but i dont think thats ok. Imho it got adjusted to bring similar results like in the war, but with much better skilled pilots.

Greetings,

Knegel