Effective Guns Range

[Toad]

Laika:

When I was a young Toad, my rifles didn't have scopes. Didn't need them, didn't have the money anyway. But, time marches on..now I have the money but not the old eyesight. Life just isn't fair.

BTW, I have a (ahem) friend that once shot a running antelope from a pickup doing about 60 mph across an open prairie. One shot kill at about 150 yards, iron sights. 90 degree aspect too.

As for all the .308 data, think of two things: ROF and tracers. They even sell tracer shotshells now to show people how to correct. Think one in five would help you walk MG rounds into the target?


Jekyll, it's one of two ways:

You believe HT has done the best he could and delivered a realistic guns model. If you then want shorter range, you are talking about a playability issue and that's an opinion.

If, OTOH, you believe HT has made a mistake in the guns model and it's not as good as it should be, that's a realism issue. Like the guys complaining about the FM realism issues, if you have verifiable data and can help him improve the programming, do so. If you can't do any better....

[Laika]

Toad,

I know there are some great shots out there in A/C and on the ground with rifles etc... but even they don’t have the consistency that we see in AH.

As for tracers they shoot a noticeably flatter trajectories than normal ball, so @ 800 if the tracers are close to the mark the "volume" of your ammo will be going under the A/C .. And I'm sure @ D800 you would not be able to see the rounds (.30 or .50 ball) hitting anyway (dump the hit sprites except for close range or with exp cannon rounds). I’m not saying we shouldn’t get hits at long range more to the point we shouldn’t see wings fall off at that range. From what I have read about WWII gunnery (maybe its not enough) we should be looking at kills at something like … most pilots <D275, good pilots <D400, Aces (top 5 or 10%) <D650. The D800 kills should only be happening more outa luck than skill.  

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this topic.  

laika

[Jekyll]

Toad:  did you read the gunnery analysis I mentioned in an earlier reply?

I too will have to agree to disagree with you.  I was hoping that AH would be a fairly realistic 'simulation' of WW2 air combat.

However, from reading some of the replies to this thread, and from reading personal emails I've received from guys who preferred their opinions not to be made public, it seems that we might as well just have lasers mounted on the aircraft.

Perhaps we could rename it "Quakers High"  

Jekyll out

[Toad]

Laika,

>I’m not saying we shouldn’t get hits at long range more to the point we shouldn’t see wings fall off at that range.<

...and I've been pointing out that it might be the damage model (amongst other things) since my first post in this thread, I think. So, maybe we DO agree.


>From what I have read about WWII gunnery (maybe its not enough) we should be looking at kills at something like … <

That's why I mentioned the hit percents of our top 100 pilots. The top 100 shoot mostly in the 4-8% range; not _excessively_ high. I think we can assume that the better shooters/flyers get a large percentage of these hits at the shorter ranges, too.

We all get pinged at long range; the question is "are the long range shooting percentages really all that hi?"

I'm betting the long range hit % is pretty low but that the damage effects might be pretty high.

Jekyll:

Yes, I read it. HT has probably read it as well. I don't (pardon the expression)   find it as a "smoking gun" proof that the guns model is way, way off.

I think what would be helpful is definitive stats on how many hits are awarded at various ranges, say 200/400/600/800 yards as a % of rounds fired. Gross and individual stats would be great. I'm not sure that HTC is tracking this or could track it.

At least we could make some sense of what's really going on. If, for example, 95% of the hits of the aforementioned "top 100" (4-8% shooters, mostly) guys are awarded at ranges less than 400 yards, then you essentially already HAVE what you are asking for, don't you?

Right now we have non-quantifiable anecdotal "I got killed at 800 yards" stories. We don't know prior damage, we don't know how many people had it happen, we don't know if one lucky ping took out an elevator in the damage model, we don't know what % of kills occur on previously undamaged a/c at ranges in excess of 600 yards. In short, we don't know anything...but we have opinions.

The question still remains:

Do you think HT modeled the guns as realistically as possible?

If you do, then you are asking for an _arbitrary_ change to the guns model for playability.

If you think the guns are _incorrectly modeled_ that is something else entirely.

Perhaps you and Ogre should get with HT and go over the guns model. Ogre's article gives the impression that he believes he understands gunnery modeling, so perhaps he's a valuable resource. I'd support that; it can't hurt anything. In those open, non-accusatory examinations everybody usually learns something.

That would be a "problem solving" situation, and a positive step.

[Minotaur]

I have noticed sometimes (frequently at times) I miss at close range(150 yds and in).  I see my tracers hit, but do no real damage to plane I am shooting at.

Seems impossible to miss, I just get the feeling that I am shooting blanks.

Merry Christmas Everyone!

Mino

[TT]

Minotaur. I have film of me lighting up a player named foxy (real good)twice inside of 200yrds. I didnt even get an asst.

[Minotaur]

TT;

Oddly, I am starting to get the idea it is better to shoot a little farther out.  This idea goes "Against the Grain" somewhat as to what a I thought I must do to be successful at gunnery.  The 300-400 yard range seems sweet.  Zoom is a necessity for me at this range.

I try not to use the heat of combat for my comparison's, but this exception illustrates my point.  

Two fights (I was flying Spit - cannon rounds) two results:

1) P-51 at 50-100yds, medium closure, high 7oc shot. (I could smell exhaust fumes)  Lit 51 up twice, Fe showed pings, 51 took no damage I could tell as it kept on flying.  

2) B-17 at 600-650yds, low closure, 6oc shot.  (Basically I was just lobbing in rounds)  Took a wing off.

My ping times generally run under 250ms, typically 190-220ms.  Got any advice?

Merry Christmas Everyone!

Mino

[Toad]

I'd be willing to "drone" if someone wants to do a little actual research on the "800 yard kill". Just give me a shout if you see me online.

After all, that's what a beta is about; testing.

I suggest making up about 6 new accounts for yourself, like "jack1", "jack2", etc.

Then I'll fly on autopilot at 250 kts while you hose me from 800 yards three different times. Use a different account each time so we can examine hit percentages. Put 2 good bursts into me  the 1st account, about 4 the second account and then shoot till I die the last time. All of these should be filmed <edit, add> and you need to record how much ammo you use.

Second set of three accounts, I'll do low-g evasives at 300 kts, and we'll try the same thing.

Then we can compare hit percentages and known damage between all these situations.

Not a perfect test by any means, but more than anecdotal stories at least.

[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 12-11-1999).]

[Fishu]

Talking about B-17 and it's guns, you can fire up to 1600 yards and even kill from 1000 yards, should I believe this?
Normally when I kill something with B-17 guns, enemy is around 600-800 yards away, that will rip wing(s) and prolly dust off the plane also.
Tried once to shoot with 20mm guns from 1100 yards, guess did I hit? no, I was sitting there for long time, fixing aim a little more up or down but no hits made.
How comes, when 20mm bullet should travel further than 12.7mm bullet? (not to talk about the difference in effect!!)

[Pyro]

Time to add my 2 cents.  There is a double-standard here when it comes to defining what is realistic.  On one hand people want to define realism by real world physics, i.e. do the bullets travel correctly.  Fair enough, that's how we set it up.  But then on the other hand, they want to define realism by matching results in the game to what they read in historical accounts.  Where this fails is that the people who match themselves up to their historical counterparts are totally out of proportion in the amount of practice that they've had at their respective tasks.  For example, just in the past few weeks since the tour was reset, Mitsu has fired over 220,000 rounds in combat.  How many real pilots have ever fired that much ordnance?  If you want to compare the tactics used by real pilots vs what is happening in the arena, you need to find suitable subject material.  Talk to some of the newbies and ask them how easy the gunnery is.

On the subject of dispersion, there seems to be a myth that dispersion makes gunnery harder at long range.  In fact it does the opposite.  All it does is make it less lethal because concentrated fire cannot be brought to bear.  However, when firing at a target, you will typically spend more time slightly off target than you will precisely on target.  The dispersion gives you more hits because you can still get hits even though you are not precisely on target.

As to the killing effect of a .50, lethality does drop off significantly with range.  However, it's not as much as some people would like to believe.  At 300 yards, you're looking at a downrange velocity at SL of about 2450 fps.  At 800 yards the velocity is about 1900 fps where it is still capable of penetrating over 1/2" of homogeneous steel plate.  

However, please bear in mind that damage values are far from complete and are very generic at this point.  I'm not trying to state that everything is fine right now, I just want to make sure the previous points are not overlooked.



------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations

[Minotaur]

Pyro;

cc Thanks!

Mino

[Laika]

>"On one hand people want to define realism by real world physics, i.e. do the bullets travel correctly. But then on the other hand, they want to define realism by matching results in the game to what they read in historical accounts."<

I'm hoping most of us are looking for "matching results in the game to what they read in historical accounts" ???. But then thats only what I want from a sim I guess..?  


laika
 

[Jekyll]

Agreed laika, and this brings me back to my original point.

If the objective is a realistic recreation of WW2 air combat, then allowances would need to be made for the fact that we have advantages over RL WW2 pilots (e.g. radar ranging gunsights).  If this means that lethality has to be artificially decreased on long range shots then so be it!

Make those 700-1000yd shots so that, although you might be able to hit, it will be just about impossible to get damage from them.

A gameplay issue??? Maybe.  But it just highlights the dangers involved in modelling one part of a sim realistically (bullet dynamics), when other parts of the sim (icons) are unrealistic.

Historical-type arenas never seem to have Long range gunnery problems, simply because the icons no longer become a factor.  No icons=no ability to judge deflection at long ranges, therefore everyone takes their shots at close range, just as it was in RL.

So, either reduce long range lethality of guns, or bring in HA style icon ranges, say Aircraft type at 1000yds, distance at 300yds.

It's gotta be worth a try at least.

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

[Laika]

cc ... What Jekyll said   ... I'm hoping we will see a "HA" type arena.  

[Pyro]

How do you tailor the sim to fit what you read though?  Who is that based on, the guys who's been playing for a little while or the guy who's got thousands of hours under his belt?  It's all relative, that's why I say ask some newbies how easy they think the gunnery is.

In a no icons environment, it's pretty difficult to complain about getting hit from long range because you don't know what range you got hit from.  



------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations