Effective Guns Range

[Toad]

>"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'."<

Interestingly, I heard that sentiment almost exactly, in fact almost word-for-word many years ago.

I was chatting with BlueBaron of AW fame when WB first went pay-for-play. BB maintained that AW, table-based FM and all, gave a much truer and more realistic WW2 ACM experience than WB.

AW hasn't changed much since then, other than in the artwork department. Perhaps he's right.  

Now let's see. HT says they are modeling each bullet by caliber, rof, velocity, resultant trajectory, slug & explosive projectile and also modeling where it hits on the aircraft and what type of material it hits. In short they are doing the best they can to give "real guns".

The planes appear much smaller here than RL due to perspective but they too are "mathematically correct", thus "realistic".

But it's still too easy to hit.

Maybe we should do some research on gunnery averages for all players. I wonder what our overall average is and what our top 50 guys shoot vs what the bottom 50 guys shoot.

Of course, we won't know at what ranges those hits were made. Maybe the high % are all earned by guys that shoot at the ranges you suggest. Maybe the low % guys take the long shots. That would fit your model of realism, wouldn't it?

What percentage of hits do you think would be realistic?

Another consideration is that maybe it's not the guns model at all. Perhaps those long range kills indicate a problem with the damage model.

I just don't think, everything connected and all, that jiggering around with the stuff that IS quantifiable (and ballistics is one of the more quantifiable, programmable aspects of this sim) is going to help much.

I'd think you'd want them to do the stuff they can do "exactly" as EXACT as they can. The stuff that has to be fudged has to be fudged, like a damage model. Those are the things you tweak for playability and "trials and tribulations of WW2 air combat."

Personally, I think we should make the Hi-alt buff guys fly for 6 hours before they reach a target area. <G> And stick their feet in buckets of ice water while doing it. <BG>  Now there would be some trials and tribulations of WW2 air combat!

Just kidding, guys, just kidding!

[Laika]

I'll go along with Jekyll here, The first time up in the 190 I killed a buff at D650. The buff lost a wing I wasn't shooting all that well and my conv was set at 300. I would have gone along with the damage if I was D300 or less, but under the conditions I felt it was a cheap kill. I would have thought there would be more dispersion. I've shot target rifles (7.62) out to 900yds and even a slight change in wind can mean "ft" of drift at the target end. So firing from a semi unstable platform (compared to ground firing) moving along at 250mph firing at a target moving at the same speed, maybe making evasives, add the conv problems with wing guns, tracers having dif drop rate etc, etc..I think it should be not so easy.  

[Vermillion]

I have to agree with Jekyll here.

To be honest Toad, I DO feel like I am back in AW with hit bubbles. So maybe BB was right   I find myself taking shots in AH, at distances that would be impossible in WB's, but correlate very nicely with AW's bubble gunnery.

Last night I got into a great fight with Windle in a F4U vs F4U duel (damn you Windle for that initial E advantage   ) We had a great fight going but eventually some friendlies showed up, so I thought I would drag Windle to them.

Well, my teammate totally ignored the easy drag kill, TWICE !! (see if I ever drag to Torch again, but kudo's to Mitsu who tried to save me at the last minute). So I was left with Windle chasing me on my six with equal e states, and about 750-850 distance (750 his FE, 850 on mine).

I was using gentle 1-2 G evasives, so I was not an easy target. But he was able to hit me easily (he called it "dozens" of time on private channel later) and eventually took a wing off.

No I am not a ballistics expert, but to regularly take 600+ yard shots and hit (I find myself doing this, and I am a piss poor shot) .... well that seems off too me.


------------------
Vermillion
WB's: (verm--), **MOL**, Men of Leisure,
"Real men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires "

[Pongo]

Laika.
Exploding shells dont neccasarily "atrit" an airframe, They can collaps it. Do you test 5 times and see how many times you drop that buff at over 600 yards. I would be supprised if that was your avagage.
I think the guys with very high shooting % are mostly shooting at stationary or still landed targets........
16 kills with one ammo load from a 190 means a very high hit rate.

[Toad]

Just a last quick note on this, then I'm going to go judge the effective range of a 12 gauge load of 6's on wild rooster pheasant for the rest of the week  

Yes, Laika, there are some other shooters here. The 3 of the last 4 elk I shot were running at 400+ yards.

Anyway, I just quickly scanned the score ranks for "hit percent." Out of the top 100 guys, 5 or 6 are shooting over 10%. Two of those are right around 15 & 16 % and those are the highest percentages.

Most of the top 100 guys are shooting in the 4-8% range.

Or, another way, 94% of the top 100 guys are shooting less than 10% hits.

Doesn't sound like an excessive number of hits to me.

There are lots of things that go into this discussion. Again I suggest looking somewhere besides the guns model. They've already described in detail how they model it. Sound like they are doing it as well as anyone. Or do you think they're lying to us?

It could easily be the damage model that is frustrating you guys. It could account for a lot of what you are seeing and it is a totally subjective feature.

How do you program the game tell if a .50 round punches a small hole through the fabric covering of an aileron or if it hits and destroys the hinge, causing the aileron to separate from the airframe?

Is the hit map so sophisticated that it "knows" the spot at the end of the center section where the forward wing attach bolt is located? If a single 20mm round hits a wing attach bolt, shouldn't bad things happen?

Of course, three inches to one side of that and you'd just punch through a wing spar bay. In and out, no real damage.

Damage modeling is just one aspect that bears on "long range shooting", too.

...and AW is still available  

[Laika]

Pongo & Toad,
My feel is that there are too many D600+ kills, Not enough dispersion is my guess. If the real WWII aces could do it @ D600+ like we can the wouldn't have bothered much with gun convergence and comments like "only fire when your windscreen is filled with the enemy."

I'm sure the Brits lowered there conv settings in WWII so they could get more kills.... Anyone know what the standard conv setting were for real WWII A/C ??  

Toad,
Nice D400 kills on the elk, try it from a moving pick-up and double the distance and thats what we are looking at in AH (btw: as WWII guns sights are non-magnifying u'll have to take the scope off ya rifle  )

laika    

[TT]

 Ive found that my most effective guns range is from about midnight to around 6 in the morning. If i go on line during prime time sometimes the guns work  some times they dont. Just lighting up a con at 150 yards is no guarantee that any harm will come to him.

 Useing the old, one one thousend, two one thousend. method of mesurement. I have counted 5 seconds of sprites on an f4u, during 3 pass,s and he was not hurt till the end of the last second which was don with nothing but MG.

 Ive mentioned in another thread that I would like to see laser guns inside of 300yards to overcome this. and not have the guns work at all outside of 300 to solve the other problems. Nothing I have seen has convienced me that "realistic" gunnery will work on the internet. Unless we are all required to get cable.

[Jekyll]

Nice one laika  

To the best of my knowledge, the Brits started the war with a standard 450yd convergence setting.  Once they realised that hardly any of their pilots could hit at that range, convergence was brought in to around 250 yds.

I've got no idea if there was such a thing as a standard convergence for the Luftwaffe, VVS or IJA/IJN.  The Americans, however, are interesting in that I think they set convergence around 400yds.  Then again, the USN pilots were the ONLY pilots to receive a fair bit of formal training on high deflection shooting.  Most other air forces stressed getting in real close, and with a low deflection angle.

For anyone out there who plays golf.. next time you're standing on the tee of a par 5, looking to the green way out there in the distance, just imagine a 35 foot wide aircraft sitting on the green, not moving.  Now imagine yourself holding a machine gun, firing at that aircraft whilst jogging on the spot.

Reckon you could hit it with any kind of sustained burst?????

And that's a non-maneuvering target only 500yds away (on average).

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

[Minotaur]

I have a thought about guns range, because I dont' like the idea of "Creative Undermodeling".

One viable and indirect way to effect guns range is to reduce the "Zoom" view factor.  IE: Make the target effectively smaller.  So you have to get closer to see, shoot and hit.

I did not initially like the "Zoom" feature.  Since I now have learned to use it, I find "Zoom" very helpful.  "Zoom" does not take me out of the cockpit.  IMO it is "A Very Nice Concession to Gameplay".  

I am kind of mixed on this idea, but I feel it would work.  
 
Mino

[chisel]

Jekyll next time it happens. Ask him how much of his clip he expended. At 750 yrds he either used alot of ammo or is very lucky!

Theres quite a bit of dispersion modeled as far as I can see. Too much for short burst sharpshooting.

If they modeled gun jams (but give us the ability to clear a stoppage! unrealistic?) I betcha long range kills would be few and far between.

[CRASH]

A few points here.
1. Most people flying this sim have had literally thousands of dog fites and obtained a huge amount of practice at deflection and long range gunnery making comparison to actual wwii pilots unrealistic.  The most experienced aces had fites listed in the hundreds at best and most pilots I'm sure were far less than a hundred and of those that actually got a chance to fire at a manuevering target even less.
2.  I've got my convergence set at 350 on all my aircraft and I have no problem puttin rounds into a target at 800m. As a matter of fact, I love watching those rounds go well down range, making hit sprites on target,  it's my favorite part of the gunnery model   The f4 with all that ammo to send down range just makes my day. I'm sure there are alot of other guys that practice long range shots just like I do.  With cannons I can do significant damage using less than half a clip provided the bandit flys predictably enough...rolling and jinking dont really help, u need to fly in one direction fer about 2 seconds and then another fer about 2.  You need to spoil ur opponents lead.  
3.  If Hitech says they're modeling each round accurately, I believe them. Ballistic charts and data are easily obtainable. Just because WWII pilots couldnt do what we do after so much practice doesnt mean it aint realistic, just means we have had more practice at our game than they had at there's.  Just my 2 cents
CRASH

[chisel]

Crash, less than half the clip in what plane?
And are these dead 6 shots or plan view shots?

Im frugal with my ammo, dont like to waste it.  

Oh and I totally agree with you. Most of us have had more gunnery practice than any real pilots in WW2.

I dont have a problem with the amount of dispersion modeled, tho some of the 109 nose cannon rounds seem a bit on the wild side. ie. bouncing around inside the blast tube  

[Jekyll]

CRASH... do this test.

Find a nice straight street somewhere.  Park your car and then walk 800metres down the street.

Then turn around and look at your car.  No matter how good a shot your are, you reckon you could realistically hit that thing with a set of machine guns whilst jogging on the spot???

And don't forget.  From dead 6 a WW2 fighter has a lot less area presented to you than the back of your car.

Seriously, try the test.  You might be surprised just how small that target is at 800m.  And we can hit maneuvering targets at that range???????  

And that is supposed to be realistic??


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

[Laika]

Jekyll,
Do you get the feeling your banging your head on the wall here ??...  hehehe

Just out of interest I dug out my range table for the 7.62 target round. Just to get some data (fact not "IMO") on what sort of “dispersion we should be seeing due to things like wind” let alone - wing flex, plane vibration, target aircraft’s slip stream, gun barrel wear, war time ammo standards (consistency), convergence setting, pilot stick movements, control flutter, sight error from a non-magnified gun sight  ...the list goes on & on.

I'm using 800yds distance unless stated otherwise.

Bullet drift due to cross wind (wind from 1 or 11 oclock)
8mph = 28 inches
20mph = 72 inches (2yds)

Bullet drift due to cross wind (wind from 3 or 9 oclock)
8mph = 56 inches (1.5yds)
20mph = 144 inches (4yds)

All,
What sorta winds are we likely to see from a 250mph slipstream?, What if a crosswind changes direction? if its 20mph we are looking at a 8yd drift (POI) @ 800yds under ideal (lab) conds, What if the con (or yourself) is working the rudder a little, air turbulence? ....blah ,blah, blah.

Gun accuracy ??
The best a .30 or .50 A/C machine gun can hope for is about 2-3 MOA (from a machine rest, prob fired single shot) that works out to 16 inch or 24 inch groups @ 800 under lab conds.
 
Now add the best possible accuracy with some wind drift and tell me its still OK to be able cut a wing off a fighter @ 800yds ... now add all the other factors listed above (and some of your own) then answer this question again.

I’m not having a go at anyone here, but think about it.

laika        


[This message has been edited by Laika (edited 12-09-1999).]

[This message has been edited by Laika (edited 12-09-1999).]

[Jekyll]

Yep laika, I'm banging my head against a brick wall all right  

As my final word on the subject, I would commend the following study to anyone interested in the viability of long range gunnery.
 http://www.concentric.net/~reaper/gunnery/gunnery.html

Have a good, long read of this analysis, and THEN tell me that 800yd shots are realistic!

This study is a very good starting point for anyone interested in designing a gunnery model for a WW2 sim, and done, I believe, by the same guy who did the terrain modelling for Aces High.

Now if only he'd done the gunnery modelling as well  

Over to you .....

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


[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 12-09-1999).]