Author Topic: why such difference in hit ability tween il2 and ah guns? (Read 5011 times)

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #45 on:** August 27, 2001, 09:26:00 PM »

Never mind Toad I really dont mind the 50cal modeling in AH all that much, just the extreme range stuff from time to time.
Its good round and all but this arguing is pointless and dangerouus.

<S> and thanks!

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #46 on:** August 27, 2001, 09:33:00 PM »

'43, '44... So what? One key away.
-SW

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #47 on:** August 27, 2001, 09:46:00 PM »

Just a joke SW.

You know for fun. heh

Hangtime · « **Reply #48 on:** August 27, 2001, 09:52:00 PM »

ROFL! Nice one Toad.

Grun, I'm a pretty fair shot with the .50's in the pony. I've no idea how many kills I've got in the last few years here.. maybe more than a couple anyway.. and I never hesitate to 'tap' a non-manuvering target less than 1,000 yards out... to get him to manuver, bleed speed, and hopefully get him into 'lethal' range.. THATS about all a .50 cal round can do to an enemy plane at those distances...

Yet in all that time flying and dying, I don't think I've ever done lethal damage to any A/C outside of 500 yards.. maybe I've gotten 4 or 5 kills at 400-500 yards, all lucky pilot hits.... fact is, the majority of my success with the 'laser .50's' is at 300 yards or less... often MUCH MUCH less.

The LW propaganda on the .50's gun modeling being overdone is just that.. propaganda. About the only plane the .50's can kill in a snap shot is a spit or zeke... and the few times it's happened I felt fortunate indeed.

A FW or a 109 takes a concentrated non-deflection, close to zero 'g' shot at VERY close range to kill it outright. Unlike my feeble pony which loses it's entire god-damned tail to just one of YOUR LW cannon hits lobbed my way from 700 yards in a 6 g turn.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #49 on:** August 27, 2001, 10:08:00 PM »

Allied propaganda on the overmodeling of LW cannon is jut that, propanganda...

muhahaaa

DeeZCamp · « **Reply #50 on:** August 27, 2001, 10:10:00 PM »

I dont get you guys. lol its pretty funny, Im not bashing AH, Im merely pointing out how IL2 is better.. in certain areas.

In MY opinion it has it beat in the gunnery department hands down. Sorry,.. Its just WAY MORE REALISTIC. I dont see how ANY of you can argue that. When you fire you have to Aim with Great prescision, and You have to take more of a planned approach to shooting your target.

In aces, you can be upwards of 800-1000K feet or is it yards?

and still Blow off a wing by some miracle of luck or.. ahem.. Skill.

Contrast: Il2 if you hit the target even if its possible (great aim and luck from those distances out, under a prime target with high aspect, at most you will litterally put a nice hole through the wing. I dunno call me crazy, but I think this makes more sense.

Quote

3 seconds of ammo, 500 yards away and your bellybutton is on the line. Would you rather have that 109 take the brutal punishment of 3 seconds worth of .50 caliber firing time or piss it all away with long range bursts at 500 yards?

So does the above mean that In aces things are simplified down to the point where we can shoot with abandon? Does it mean that IL2 is trying to simulate Airal combat with a greater degree of realisim? I think yes on the latter.

Quote

AH is crisp and clear. It's easy to find out if u've shot him and done damage. I don't think it's quite this clear in IL-2

This is true, but you know what?... It would not be so superfically clear in reality either. Thus this is what IL2 is simulating. Rarely does a plane get shot up a fair amount in aces and not wind up losing wings, elevators or other major flight supporting components. In Il2 beyond the fact that there is a better graphic representation of how the damage is applied, you also have damage, and a great deal that can be taken on a vast majority of the plane. In Il2, it definatly seems that if you were to hit the leading edge of a wing, that is what you would most likey damage. NOT an elevator or an aileron for that matter.

Toad · « **Reply #51 on:** August 27, 2001, 10:49:00 PM »

Yes Grun, I posted the sniper rifle data and have never denied it or tried to weasel out of it. If you will take the trouble to re-read the post, you'll see that I SPECIFICALLY said it was a sniper rifle and thus OPTIMUM conditions.

That gun put 5 rounds in an 8" circle at 1000 YARDS. It's a good gun, but it's not ALL the gun... you have to have a good round to do that. An EXTREMELY good round.

I think I also pointed out that an MG couldn't approach that type of performance.

I don't know where the actual guys in WW2 fired. I doubt they know for sure within a few hundred yards.

I DO know this... a bullet doesn't just vaporize into another astral plane at any range. It follows a trajectory and eventually arrives back on the ground.

Never saw a claim of a MiG kill in Korea at 45k. Perhaps you could give me a link? I have read of 1k kills at lower altitudes. Or is this more of your exaggeration?

I _think_ Pyro does use the altitude modeling in the ballistic computation. I can't say that for sure, however. Just because YOU don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

I'm sure you agree that it will go at least 1000 yards at any altitude, correct? Ever seen hit sprites on a target or ground at 2K? Because I assure you, the .50 BMG will travel far more than 2k on the ground or at any altitude. But can you see them hit in the game?

You seem to be an intelligent guy. However, your name-calling posting style doesn't do much for winning points in a discussion.

I'll resume this if you like... after you read what I actually posted on the sniper rifle.

jihad · « **Reply #52 on:** August 27, 2001, 11:02:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DeeZCamp:
Il2 gunnery is much more realistic, it requires that you actualy get close in

(more like reality)

theres a saying you know...

"dont shoot untill the enemy fills your windscreen"

it applies there.

I have tracks if anyone wants to see.
(mouse views are excellent too for this)

as far as the damage portion, A very low almost parallel shot will hit and maybe eve richochet off the target.

Oleg states that the Gunnery is modeled in such a way that rochocheting can ocur.

For thos who dont belive that a short burst of 20mm will kill a plane, try a shot from a higher aspect. at about .20 distance..

Deez, on one hand you keep applauding the *realism* of IL-2, while constantly blabbering about how you use the mouse view for *UNREALISTIC* viewing in the cockpit.

Why don't you take it to BlueBytes forums instead of toejamting on HTC on their UBB?

Both games have advantages/disadvantages over each other depending on the features you choose to focus on.

Il-2 is entertaining and quite different in its play than AH - but it's in poor taste to keep promoting it and attacking Aces High on this website - STFU already, we can draw our own conclusions about the two games.

[ 08-27-2001: Message edited by: jihad ]

Buzzbait · « **Reply #53 on:** August 28, 2001, 12:27:00 AM »

S! all

There are problems with IL-2, in particular the roll rates of the aircraft at high speed, but the gunnery model in the Sim is probably the most advanced ever.

Here is an article which talks about the hit model on IL-2 and other Sims:
http://flightsim.thrustmaster.com/articles/read.php3?id=182

DeeZCamp · « **Reply #54 on:** August 28, 2001, 12:29:00 AM »

DB603 · « **Reply #55 on:** August 28, 2001, 01:46:00 AM »

S!

About the so called "not all bullets are modeled since no splash"- statement. Oleg himself has stated that every bullet is modeled, but to save FPS not every single splash is drawn.
About the tracers. IRL they had different trajectory than ordinary bullets.Usually the tracers had higher arc than oridinary bullet.So it can appear that U hit the target with tracers but the real ones pass harmlessly below the target.
As in the article at Thrustmaster, the IL-2 gunnery makes sense. As stated there, the nose oscillation increases the dispersion at greater ranges thus decreasing the hit propability.
Someone mentioned the bullets flying in a cone. That is true. The gun vibrates, barrels heat up, wings flex, increasing dispersion and this causes the "cone" of bullets.No 8" hits from 1000yards

U can put up every single table of testbench fired gun, but that only gives an idea how the gun performs in ideal conditions against stationery target, not in actual combat.

Oh well..I get shot down in FLAMES by posting this, but had to post my 2 cents here

Robert · « **Reply #56 on:** August 28, 2001, 02:07:00 AM »

I think i've shot down 10x maybe 100x more planes than any hi scoring ace in any war. If i shoot 200,000 bullets and the ace shoots 200 bullets i think my aim is going to be better than his due to more practice.
Players of this game are more accurate at gunnery due to more practice. If the guns in the game were modeled completely correct i would still have a better aim.

RWY

Urchin · « **Reply #57 on:** August 28, 2001, 02:29:00 AM »

On a totally unrelated side note - I can hit with the 13mm MGs in the Dora out to about 800 yards in AH. I can't shoot anyone DOWN at that range, but I can ping em with short bursts. Usually most people just ignore it though, and keep flying straight. I guess the trajectory isnt as flat with the LW MG's, but it isn't exactly a mortar shell either, it can be done.

Hristo · « **Reply #58 on:** August 28, 2001, 04:15:00 AM »

Il-2 seems so dedicated to detail that unrealistic gunnery is very unlikely. Just try playing ti for few hours and carefully watch what is happening around you.

More likely Il-2 gunnery has more factors involved than what we used to.

Fishu · « **Reply #59 on:** August 28, 2001, 05:21:00 AM »

oh.. by the way, have you ever shot the tail off from your IL-2 with tail gun?-)

..surely doesn't feel like AH gunnery, where you can fire through rear fuselage with ball turret and damage enemy only.