why such difference in hit ability tween il2 and ah guns?

[ra]

Deja,

I was referring to cowl MG's.  You strafe the water, you see splashes, but only for tracer rounds.

Another IL-2 cheerleader        

ra

[elstevie]

Well i downloaded il2 twice and both time i opened file it had a csc? error or something like that.Can someone send me the file or mabe tell me why it wont work?

Thanx a bunch  

[AKDejaVu]

I was referring to cowl MG's. You strafe the water, you see splashes, but only for tracer rounds.

Another IL-2 cheerleader

Sorry.. I missed the water part.  But.. with the 20mm.. I don't believe the tracers were explosive?  If they were... I'm hitting with more than what is indicated... not less?

BTW.. don't really get the Il-2 cheerleader thing.  Are you saying I'm the cheerleader or that I implied you were?

AKDejaVu

[GRUNHERZ]

I tried the demo:

My Throttle isnt recoginzed.

My twisty stick rudder isnt recognized.

The 109 is impossible to aim as it doesnt have a gunsight, the phyiscal gunsite is offset to the right while the projection seems to centered and you only ever see it in tight turn.

I HATE the film/dirt on the window, maybe the russians loved flying around in filthy planes but I know for a fact it was standard LW procedure for the "black men" to clean the windows before flight, toejam they even removed the mud/dirt from their pilots boots so it wouldt fly aroind inside the cockpit in combat and smudge the glass.

The aiming is very hard, but I suspect its because I have no aimpoint in the 109, no rudder control to finetune shots, and no way to cut throttle to prevent overshoots.

I think AH aiming is too easy at exterem ranges, all USA pilots in here said 500yds max for .50cals but waaaaay to many in here hit and kill with those things at 800-900-1000 yards, even on the deck.

[leonid]

Grunherz, if you look click on Controls and look for something like 'center sight (German only)' you'll see it has a hot key: Shift+F1.

I think the reason Oleg did this is because if you really flew a 109 by looking over the gunsight, you'd be leaning to the right the whole time.  Sort of an aesthetic thing.

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

[AKDejaVu]

Hehehe.. one thing I found funny was a bug where a bullet comes through the glass and hits the gunsight.  Its pretty cool in the effect and it kicks the top portion of the sight off and bends it to the right.

In the Bf109, this is enhanced by the fact that your guns now fire at the sights new position (way down and to the right).  I know its just a bug.. but its a funny one.

AKDejaVu

[Midnight]

How about the fact that in RL, WWII pilots would say to get in close because they were shooting for their very lives with a limited amount of ammo. I highly doubt they ever practiced extreme range shots while in combat the way we can do on a daily basis with no fear at all.

We do seem to have no RL effects on bullet flight paths except for maybe gravity. Wind certainly doesn't play a factor.

When you first started AH, did you routinely hit with long range shots, or have to fine tune your skills?

Given the oppurtunity, I would venture a guess that several of the better WWII pilots could have hit longer range targets if they were given the fear free environment in which to do so.

I think that IL2 has artifically decreased the range of theguns to match up with what WWII pilots experiences were. Not what real guns are capable of doing.

[GRUNHERZ]

Midnight you sound like deezcamps unsubstantiated bashing of AH, be careful...  


I wanna see my rudder, throttle and gunsight work before i make my full opinion of IL2 gunnery, as it stands now i find it impossible.

[AKSWulfe]

Impossible as this may sound, a little common sense will guide you all to the answers you seek regarding the gunnery.

1943: There you are in a P51D chasing a 109G6. You are roughly 500 yards away, but you have no idea how much ammo you have left. You know you've only fired a few short bursts into a few 190s and 109s. None went down as near as you can tell. You figure you have 3 seconds of ammo left.

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?

Now you see why it makes more sense to get in close in real life. Because it's your life on the line, not a few pixels that fade away and reproduce in another quadrant on some virtual battle field.

Harder or not, you guys ALL know where the data is and you ALL know how the tests you can do if you want to find out the velocity, trajectory and bullet flight path of each of our weapons.

Many have brought up the weapons issue before, many have come with data... here we are today and the only thing done to the gunnery was adding the cockpit vibration. Why? So far HTC's weapons modelling has matched real life tests.
-SW

[Kweassa]

I think it is something to do with multiple numbers of reasons all stated above oozing and mixing up to create a strange effect. Particularly something to do with the damage models mixing it up with gunnery models.

 First, I don't think "I know I hit something" is very objective. You send out a birst, bits and parcels come off... but was it all your shots landing and ripping off some vital chunks? Or is it a few rounds cropping away dust and blowing useless holes? Everytime when somebody complains about "1 ping fatality" in AH, he's met with the classical "that 1 ping could be 1 round hitting, but it also could be 10 rounds hitting. U don't know for sure" answer(which seems reasonable to me, anyway..). I don't see why this sort of logic shouldn't apply to IL-2.

 Second, maybe the damage model is drastically different from what we've seen in AH. In AH, something gets immediately destroyed. All-or-nothing. No damage or total destruction. I can't say that MS CFS has modelled damages more properly than AH(since, yeah, I know jacksh**.. I've never in WWII  ), but in CFS, damage models seem to make a bit more sense to me.

  'Fatal' damages somehow never look fatal. Things don't just rip out and show as easily as AH in CFS. Many times I shoot at a plane, and it seems to fly on and I chase him and dump everything just to blow him up. It wasn't until later that I found out that the target plane, looking pretty healthy to me, was actually a flying brick. I chased a plane I shot for a moment to see what happens.. the damaged plane, though it seems it was still flying, would just go plain straight, can't move around much, then after some time will lose alt and plummet to the ground. Or in other cases, the plane I shot flies fine straight.. until I chase him, he tries to move away, then can't recover from his roll and drops to the ground. Or sometimes, the plane just seems to be fine.

 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.

 I wonder if there is a hit percentage data of the single sortie one flies in IL-2. This would help to clear up if IL-2's gunnery model is a 'screwed' one, or a 'realistic' one. Until we get to judge upon that sort of data.. I don't think we can do much more than just oggle around and keep guessing  

[GRUNHERZ]

There were no P51D in 1943.   (joke)

Listen from what I read about WW2 combat two things always come to trhe top regarding gunnery.

USA fighter pilts pretty consistantly said max range of US .50cals was 500 yards.

USA bomber gunners said pretty consistantly that max effective range of their .50cals was about 600 yards.

ALL pilots said get in close, then get in even closer before fring.

AND

Pilots on BOTH sides, allied and axis, would recount at being relived when the opponent would open fire at greater than 500meters/yards as they knew this was a rookie who didnt know what the hell they were doing. Again Ive seen this from both ALLIED and AXIS combat accounts.


As to the AH community too many of us here belive quoting supposed asccuracy figures of hand built custom .50cal single shot bipod/tripod mounted, hi power scope, and muzzle brake equipped, $5000 sniper rifles, fired by expert snipers from a fixed position at a fixed target with complete freedom in time to take aim and fire, to be the same performance of  mass produced aircraft guns.

SURPRISINGLY (and logically) this is not the same as firing 6-8 high rate of fire guns, in a flexible mounts, with rather flexible shaking wings, with variable convergence, with rather imprecise sigting, fireing from a platform in constant 3 dimensional movement at another small constantly 3D moving target, who is trying to make you miss.

Now dont any of you try to back out of you roadkill sniper rifle arguments, you know you made them and you know they are roadkill. But I dont suppose youll own up to it. Oh well, keep ur fantasy going I suppose, it certainly is not my problem.
 

enjoy!

[Toad]

The round itself... not the gun, not any gun... is one of the most ballistically perfect rounds ever developed.

Get over it.

[GRUNHERZ]

Ok I admit it! Custom built scoped sniper rifles firing from fixed positions at fixed targets and  mass produced high ROF MGs in wings firing from a moving target at a moving target with crude sighting ARE ecatly the same.

How could I ever assume otherwise.


Really some of you guys are true red-white-and blue fanatics........ You are the USA Taliban......

[Toad]

Sniper rifle data I posted was merely to demonstrate the capability of the round under optimum conditions.

I have never read ANY post and I certainly did not post any statement to the effect that WW2 wing-mounted machine guns could approach the accuracy of a bolt action .50 BMG.

IMO, you are deliberately trying to mis-inform people in this regard. I look forward to your posting of a thread where anyone made such a statement.

Ask yourself this:

What other pre-WW2 machine gun round is still in current use?

The first machine gun was standardized as the M1921 and, in 1924, the Caliber .50 Browning Machine Gun Cartridge was adopted in the form pretty much as we know it still today.

The .50 BMG is rapidly approaching its 80th birthday and it may well see its 100th birthday in active, front-line US military service. It's the oldest continuously serving caliber left in existence, next to the .45 ACP.

Why, in this age of CAD/CAM would such an old relic persist?

Because it is simply either the best or one of the very best heavy machine gun rounds existent.

You can try to sway the argument with heated rhetoric but the facts are out there and easy to find.

The .50 BMG is just an amazing round.

Now go cry into your leather hankie.  

[GRUNHERZ]

Allahu Akbar!!! Toad.

Yes its good round, but again you admit to posting the  sniper rifle data when ppl inquire about 50cal performance in AH.  Now please dont try to waesel out of it as the implication is clear.


Anyway it seems that the guys in WW2 actually firing the guns had no idea what they were doing and that the consistant 500/600 yard max range is quoted. I suppose they simply hadnt the benefit of your fine indoctorization on the "capability" of their round.

Anyway if you wanna know the capabilty of this round thjey were capable of killing out to 1000yards, yessir. In Korea at 45,000 feet altitude thje thin air imposed less drag on the bullet, and voila 1000 yard kills.

In AH I see no diference in 50cal range from sea level to to 35000 feet.  Bit then again its a very "capable" round isnt it?  

Allahu Akbar!!!!!!  Toad!!  

Now go cry in ur red-white-and blue Turban!