Effective Guns Range

[Jekyll]

First off, I know that the icons on enemy planes effectively give us a radar ranging gunsight, and I know that a lot of the guys flying AH have thousands of flights behind them, and therefore should be experts at deflection shooting.... BUT

When you can be maneuvering with a con 750 yds back, and he is able to systematically remove your wings, tail and other parts with well-placed gunfire... then I have to think that effective gun ranges are a trifle too long.

Long range gunnery effectively negates a lot of defensive ACM, since you have to commence your maneuver at long range simply to survive, rather than at shorter ranges with the intention to force the overshoot and go on the offensive.

Net lag undoubtedly an issue, but last night I had a con 1000yds back who had no difficulty shooting my jinking butt out of the sky.  On private channel he stated that he had fired at 750 yds on his FE.

IMHO, effective guns range should be half what it is at present.

Opinions?  Flames??

------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm
'feel the heat .......'

[Minotaur]

Jekyll;

I am not sure where I picked this up but, "Objects in the Rearview Mirror They Appear FARTHER than They Are".  (Now I got a Meatloaf song banging in my head   )

For safety, any NME on my six I consider to be half the distance that I visual them to be at.  

In your case at d750, I would have assumed that the NME could potentially be at d325.  If a plane is at d1.4, on my six and shooting, they are probably in range.

As another note.  I have been shotdown, when looking in my view when the NME was NOT pointing the "Hot End" at me.  I had a lovely view of the top of their canopy right up until I became a beautiful fire ball.  

Hope this Helps    

Mino

[This message has been edited by Minotaur (edited 12-04-1999).]

[Jekyll]

I may not have explained it properly Minotaur.

On my FE the enemy was 1000yds back.  On my enemy's FE (confirmed via radio message later) I was at 750 yds when shot down.

I'm aware that netlag causes objects in rear view to be closer than they appear, but surely 750yds is outside what one would normally expect to be effective guns range.

This becomes even more important if you're in a buff, and are attacked from the rear.  Because of netlag, you are seeing your enemy where he was about 1 - 2 seconds ago, and he is seeing you where you were 1 - 2 seconds ago.

So say an enemy is crawling up the 6 of your buff at high overtake.  If your buff is doing say, 200 kts, and the enemy is boring in at 350 kts......

He will be seeing you 100-200 yds back of where your true position is (according to your FE), and you will be seeing him 170 - 340 yds back of where he is on his FE.  That adds up to a total netlag difference of up to 500yds.

So when you start shooting at that con at 1000yds on your FE, he will only be seeing you 500yds away on his FE.  And with effective guns ranges as they presently are, it should not be too hard for him to knock you down.


------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm
'feel the heat .......'

[Fishu]

My opinion is that some guns are too powerful from close and then again most guns are very weak from distance.
If shot from close, some handful of 13mm is enough to take whole wing out of B-17 if shoots nearby wingtip, but when shoots with cannons and all from 800 yards, can shoot for many many shots just to damage one engine of B-17, which seems wrong. (and I really do mean many)

[Minotaur]

Jekyll;

cc

Mino

[Hristo]

And I laughed at Spit firing at my 6 from 1300 yards. Until I got wingtip shot off.

He said he was 800 yards away.

[eagl]

750 yards is 2250 ft right?  That's not even half a mile away.  Even a rifle bullet fired at that distance will still have a bunch of energy left.  Sure, the bullet shouldn't do as much damage that far out but at only half a mile, there still ought to be plenty of lethality especially if the shooter is hosing down his target.

Without ballistics tables I couldn't tell you exactly how much energy is wasted out that far, but it only has to be "enough".  In other words, if a .50 cal round needs X ft/lbs to break an aileron hinge, then that single shell ought to be able to do that kind of damage out to where it no longer has the energy to do create the damage that's modelled.  The same thing goes for wing spars, oil lines, and pilot armor.  At half a mile, any of the rounds modelled in AH has enough energy to penetrate the top of any fighter canopy in the game for example.

In addition, if any HE shell hits you, it's going to cause a bunch of damage if the round fuzes regardless of how fast the round is going.  Sure, it might merely blast a hole in the sheet metal if it isn't moving fast enough to penetrate far, but if there's a cable or oil/hydraulic/fuel line under the skin there, you're toast.

Remember that this is assuming the shooter hits you...  Any dispersion effects are a completely different matter and I haven't read anything from HTC about that yet.  In my worthless opinion, there will always be squeaking about the gunnery and damage models until computers get fast enough for the programmers to model every single round fired along it's own trajectory including effects of drag at different altitudes, and the materials and actual structure of each plane is also modelled.  Until then, we gotta go with what they CAN model, and right now the beta is modelling a fairly high degree of lethality.

I of course don't know their plans on changing/tweaking/finishing the gunnery and damage...




------------------
eagl <squealing Pigs> BYA
Oink Oink To War!!!

[hitech]

Even then there will still be squeaking about gunnery right now we do model every bullet, realistic drag's, and despersions. We even model different compontet types against different bullet types.

HiTech

[Toad]

You don't have to lean very hard on a Phillips head screwdriver to punch the point through the aluminum skin of a WW2 Aircraft. It's just not that thick.

If anyone here wants to demonstrate the weakness of an MG round at 1000 yards by catching a .50 cal round with their naked belly button at that range, I'd love to watch    I'll even film the results for your mourning family.

[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 12-05-1999).]

[Jekyll]

Whoa guys.

This thread was not meant as a whine, a moan or a squeak.... it was simply a question as to whether effective guns ranges are a bit out of whack at the moment.

The overall result I think we all want is a fairly realistic representation of all the trials and tribulations faced by WW2 pilots.  These pilots did not, of course have netlag problems to contend with.  Nor did they have the advantage of radar ranging gunsights, such as we have at the moment with icon ranges.

So providing a perfectly realistic gunnery model, in a simulation which has to take into account the effects of netlag and icons, may result in a less than realistic outcome.

If that means that lethality at a distance has to be reduced below 'realistic' levels, in order for a fairly realistic outcome to arise, then shouldn't THAT be the priority?

After all, it is the overall 'feel' of Aces High which is important, NOT whether every shell maintains its realistic killing potential at 1500 yds.

Damn, I'm sure I've written exactly these words before, only on a different bulletin board  Jedi, you out there and want to chip in???  


------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm
'feel the heat .......'

[juzz]

It seems like the "dispertion" effect is making it easier to hit at long range, instead of harder. Like a shotgun effect. Especially in the B17G where up to 6 or more .50's are firing at the same point, that puts alot of rounds into a wide area of sky due to the "dispertion" effect. I'm not so sure those bullets are only half an inch wide...?

[Toad]

>it was simply a question as to whether >effective guns ranges are a bit out of >whack at the moment.

Well, what do you think "effective" guns range should be and upon what data/info/experience do you base that opinion? I'm always willing to learn something new!

>These pilots did not, of course have netlag >problems to contend with.

Agreed. Nor is there any way to adjust a guns model for netlag, which by its very nature, is continuously variable for each player. So, we have to live with that.

>Nor did they have the advantage of radar >ranging gunsights, such as we have at the >moment with icon ranges.

Agreed. This is something that we could do something about. There have been a lot of suggestions in a lot of threads about minimizing/eliminating icons. I favor that. However, there doesn't appear to be a hugh groundswell of support for that position, nor has any interest been expressed by the designers. We may have to live with this too.


>If that means that lethality at a distance >has to be reduced below 'realistic' levels, >in order for a fairly realistic outcome to >arise, then shouldn't THAT be the priority?

Realism is an elusive goal and exceptionally hard to define in this environment. Most of the people playing this game have never even flown an aircraft. Whose standards shall we use? How do we determing a realistic outcome?

Then there's the ever-looming playability question. So much "realism" has been sacrificed for gaming that it's hard to know where to even begin drawing the line. Make the guns too hard, people will find another venue. Make them too easy and the same will happen.

Bottom line? Make an "honest" guns model, a true as you know how and let the chips fall where they may. You can't control netlag, icons are apparently an indispensible playability feature and there's no way to really determine what a "realistic" guns outcome would be. There's too many variables.

[Jekyll]

Well Toad, all of my experience is drawn from extensive reading.  I've come to the following conclusions  

1.  With the exception of the USN pilots, high angle deflection shooting was not an art which was taught to pilots;
2.  For the vast majority of WW2 pilots, they needed to be within 300yds, at a deflection angle of less than 30 degrees, in order to get guns on target;
3.  Notwithstanding the above, there WERE certain pilots who could obtain kills at long range.  'Screwball' Beurling is one who comes to mind, who once nailed a 109 in a 90 degree deflection shot with cannons at over 800 yds.
4.  All pilots were taught to get in close, real close, before firing, in order to have the best chance to actually hit the target.

I would imagine that effective guns range for maneuvering fighters would be somewhere in the order of 400yds.

Just because a ground-mounted machine gun can get hits at a stationary target at over 1000yds does not IMHO deserve much weight.

Put that machine gun on an aircraft, bouncing around at 300kts, and trying to hit another similarly bouncing aircraft and the difficulties in obtaining hits multiply dramatically.

FWIW, the introduction of the shorter range guns model in WB was probably the best thing that ever happened to that sim (once the bug with lost hits was ironed out).

TnB pilots could get into a real close dogfight and see the results of close range hits.  BnZ fighters were able to extend away from a fight, just as they should be able to.  Energy fighters came into their own, since you no longer needed 800yds plus separation to get you out of guns range.

Just a personal preference, but I'd dearly love to see the effective guns ranges toned down a tad.  

------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm
'feel the heat .......'

[Toad]

Well, if I understand you correctly, you view it as a playability, not realism, issue.

Now we're into opinion and you probably know the old saying about opinions.

I'm just happy we're not still in the old "hit bubble" AW days.

[Jekyll]

I think you've got my sentiments backwards Toad.  I think that lowering effective guns range would increase the 'realism' of the sim.  I'm not overly concerned with playability issues, believing that if the realism is right, the playability merely comes along for the ride.

All I am saying is that if 'realism' is the goal, you have to define what you mean by that.  Do we mean that every part of AH is mathematically modelled to be as realistic as possible?  Or do we mean that the overall effect of the sim is to provide as realistic a model as possible of the trials and tribulations of WW2 air combat.

Frankly, I'd prefer the latter version of 'realism'.  And if we accept that any computer simulation has to put up with non-realistic components such as netlag and the compression of views to fit on a 15" monitor, then in order for the overall effect to be realistic tweaks have to be made to the other components of the sim, one of which is the gunnery model.

What was it Lenin said?, "Everything is connected to everything else".  In a computer simulation every component is connected to every other component.  View limitations cause the need for icons displaying ranges, which makes long range gunnery much easier because we have a perfectly accurate means of measuring distance.  And so, if the gunnery model is mathematically realistic, it is actually easier than it was in real life to connect with those 750yd snapshots.

------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm
'feel the heat .......'