The FW-190 series is the most poorly flown plane in the game

[Anaxogoras]

The Hispano retains more energy at range than the MG 151 because it's a heavier shell with a higher initial velocity.

[toonces3]

If its cannon we're talking about, sure it does.  It's not .50 cal ball we're talking here.  Sure, there's a small portion of kinetic damage from a 20mm round, but comparitively speaking, the relationship should be the same.

Interesting discussion.

Stoney, I think what you're saying is valid; or at least it's as I would intuit things to be.  A cannon round, from what I understand, does it's damage primarily from the explosive charge, not the kinetic energy of the round.

What occurs in reality, and what occurs as modeled in the game could be different.  It's the game model that is important.  Not reality.

I've been thinking for a while that the cannons on the FW birds seemed undermodeled, but I couldn't put my finger on what seemed wrong.  There is certainly the appearance of some disparity in the hitting power of the different rounds- could be range dependent, I don't know. 

I don't find the idea inconceivable.

If nothing else, I seem to be seeing alot more landed FW kills in the MA over the last couple of nights.  Could be coincidence.   Could be that I'm just noticing them now.  Or, it could be that some folks read this thread and decided to show us what the FW can do.

[Stoney]

The Hispano retains more energy at range than the MG 151 because it's a heavier shell with a higher initial velocity.

Ok, according to Tony Williams website, it looks like he rates the rounds with the MG151 at 80% power relative to the Hispano.  Given that, and my in-game test, I'd say that Urchin's 60% prediction is a low-ball SWAG that supports his argument, but isn't fully accurate.

And Toonces, why wouldn't there be a disparity?  The Hispano round was a little larger than the MG151 round.  Just because it doesn't hit as hard doesn't mean its nerfed.  Lots of folks on this board like to use terms like undermodeled or overmodeled without really knowing what they're comparing to.  And, ultimately, as you alluded to, in-game performance, relative to all the other aircraft, is trully the only thing that matters.

Should it take 12 MG151 rounds to knock the wing off a P-47?  I have no idea--but as long as all the different weapons are either nerfed or buffed equally, they're all relatively accurate with respect to each other, and therefore, credible.

[BnZ]

I took the 109 G2 up offline and tapped single rounds into the left wing of the Pony at ~200. Took 6.

Did the same thing with the P-38. (It has a Hispano right?) Took 5.

Is there any kind of "damage randomizing" effect for impacts to the same spot on the same plane?

Doesn't seem too bad. I guess ROF is the deal-breaker.

[BaldEagl]

I took the 109 G2 up offline and tapped single rounds into the left wing of the Pony at ~200. Took 6.

Did the same thing with the P-38. (It has a Hispano right?) Took 5.

Is there any kind of "damage randomizing" effect for impacts to the same spot on the same plane?

Doesn't seem too bad. I guess ROF is the deal-breaker.

So you're saying that while trying to hit a manouvering target that 6 rounds vs 5 is a "deal breaker"?  I'm not sure I've ever heard something so ridiculous in my life.

[Xasthur]

I'd like to organise some sort of friendly duelling and many V many 'competition' in the Fw 190 series just for fun. Perhaps we could get a list of names together and collectively organise some fights in order to share tips on how to get the best out this largely misunderstood cartoon aircraft. I know I really enjoy dogfighting in the 190 and one of the best fights I've ever had was in a Dora on the deck turning hard with Ponies.

[Urchin]

Ok, according to Tony Williams website, it looks like he rates the rounds with the MG151 at 80% power relative to the Hispano.  Given that, and my in-game test, I'd say that Urchin's 60% prediction is a low-ball SWAG that supports his argument, but isn't fully accurate.

And Toonces, why wouldn't there be a disparity?  The Hispano round was a little larger than the MG151 round.  Just because it doesn't hit as hard doesn't mean its nerfed.  Lots of folks on this board like to use terms like undermodeled or overmodeled without really knowing what they're comparing to.  And, ultimately, as you alluded to, in-game performance, relative to all the other aircraft, is trully the only thing that matters.

Should it take 12 MG151 rounds to knock the wing off a P-47?  I have no idea--but as long as all the different weapons are either nerfed or buffed equally, they're all relatively accurate with respect to each other, and therefore, credible.

Stoney -

I couldn't find the thread I was talking about, but I did find an earlier building test, and a test I did comparing A2A damage for the MG151 and MG-FF. 

The old ground testing thread - http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,97083.0.html

I doubt you'd be able to access the second thread, since it is in an old squad forum, so I'll cut and paste it.

It is my 'feeling' that the MG-FF on the 109E4 are decidely underpowered.  According to the 'experts' that posted in a different thread, the MG-FF should hit at LEAST as hard as the MG151/20, since both rely on explosive shells for damage, rather than velocity. 

I'd like each of you to do a little test for me. 

Take off in EITHER a 109E4 or a 190A5 (with just 2 cannon, the MG151).  In offline mode, btw.  Set your convergence to 200 or 250.  Get to approximately 200 or 250 yards (depending on convergence) and count the number of hits before something falls off (i.e. a wing, a tail, it explodes, etc.) , and record this.  Do it 10 times if you don't mind (1, possibly 2 flights should be more than suffiecient).  Warning in advance, fire very slowly, so you can count the individual hit flashes.  I'd recommend aiming for the fuselage, although you can try aiming for the wing on some of the tests.  I'll do both, and post the results here.

I'd like you to post the results of your tests (remember it is either/or, although you CAN do both if you really feel like it).  I'd like to have some hard evidence before I start whining about this .

Thanks in advance.

Don't everybody go at once now.  I considered a plane (in this case the offline P-51s) killed when 1 of 3 things happened.  1.  It exploded, 2.  Its wing fell off, or 3.  It tail fell off.

I did 30 tests with the 109E4 and 30 tests with the 190A5.  These are the results I got. 

109E4: (2 MG-FF/M)7,12,5,10,13,5,12,8,10,6,9,9,4,6,6,10,8,6,9,9,8,5,14,8,5,8,10,4,9,12

190A5: (2 MG-151/20)
9,8,8,6,7,4,7,5,7,5,11,8,5,6,6,5,5,1,6,8,2,6,3,3,4,3,8,9,4,3

The average number of hits required to obtain a 'kill' with the MG-FF/M was (247/30) 8.23 rounds. 

The average number of hits required to obtain a 'kill' with the MG-151/20 was (172/30) 5.73 rounds.

This is a difference of roughly 40%.

Even if you throw out the high and low numbers, there will still be a strong descrepancy between the strength of the two cannon.

Without the high and low numbers, the average number of MG-FF/M rounds for a kill was (229/28) 8.17 rounds.

Without the high and low numbers, the average number of MG-151/20 rounds for a kill was (160/28) 5.71 rounds.

According to data posted in a different thread about the MG-FF, it was posted that both the MG-FF and the MG-151/20 use explosive shells for damage- not velocity and impact like the Hispano or .50 caliber.  The MG-FF fired a projectile with around 20 grams of HE, and the MG-151/20 fired a projectile with 18.7 grams of HE.  Since both rely on explosive damage, it seems logical that both cannon would do similar amounts of damage in Aces High.  They don't. 

Please do at least 10 trial runs with the 109E and any LW plane with an MG-151/20.  I'd like to see if your data corraborates mine, or if somehow I managed to get an average that isnt the 'real' average.  I don't want to 'go public' with this until I've got some extra data, so please help me out.

Again, thanks in advance.

[BaldEagl]

I'd like to organise some sort of friendly duelling and many V many 'competition' in the Fw 190 series just for fun. Perhaps we could get a list of names together and collectively organise some fights in order to share tips on how to get the best out this largely misunderstood cartoon aircraft. I know I really enjoy dogfighting in the 190 and one of the best fights I've ever had was in a Dora on the deck turning hard with Ponies.

I'd be up for that depending on the day/time and if I can remember.

[Anaxogoras]

I took the 109 G2 up offline and tapped single rounds into the left wing of the Pony at ~200.

It's from 400+ yards that any significant difference should show up.

[Stoney]

I started a new thread in Aircraft and Vehicles to continue the cannon debate...

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,247765.0.html

[BnZ]

So you're saying that while trying to hit a manouvering target that 6 rounds vs 5 is a "deal breaker"?  I'm not sure I've ever heard something so ridiculous in my life.

*sigh*

No Bald, I'm saying that on for example a high-deflection snapshot, even though both rounds have about the same hitting power, the cannon with the slower ROF will put fewer rounds on target as it flies through your bullet stream, thus perceived difference in deadly between the two brands of cannon.

Btw, something no one has mentioned in regards to the FW 190 variants is the advantageous placement of the wing-root cannon and cowl guns. Cans are about as close together as you can get with wing-mounting, if you do a .target, produces a very tight pattern over a long range of distances.

[Anaxogoras]

Don't take it seriously bnz.  Bald has an unfortunate habit of putting the most stupid words possible into others' mouths.

[BaldEagl]

*sigh*

No Bald, I'm saying that on for example a high-deflection snapshot, even though both rounds have about the same hitting power, the cannon with the slower ROF will put fewer rounds on target as it flies through your bullet stream, thus perceived difference in deadly between the two brands of cannon.

Got it.  Had a few too many last night.

[Anaxogoras]

In fact, the P-38 should have the equivalent of the Hispano II cannon, which fired 10r/s, which is less than the 12r/s of the MG151.

However, the Spitfires and Typhoons we have in the game seem to have the Hispano V cannon, with a rof fire of 12.5 r/s, a much better weapon than the Hispano II. http://gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php

In Aircraft and Vehicles Stoney wrote:

According to Tony Williams website found here http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

Cartridge Comparison:

MG-FF = .7
MG151 = .8
Hispano II/V = 1

Gun Power Comparison:

MG-FF = .6
MG151 = .9
Hispano II/V = 1/1.2

So, the gunpower of the Hispano V on Spitfires and Typhs is 33% greater than the MG 151. Sounds accurate compared to AH.  Multiply by four and you get the Hizookas of death we see on the Typh and Temp, whereas the 190A-8 4xcannon don't even compare.

[Anaxogoras]

Yup, our Spitfires and Typhy are supposed to have the Hispano II cannon, but their ROF is more like a Hispano V according to gonzo's site.  When I test if offline I get more like 11 r/s.

http://gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php says that the Spitfire cannons have ~9 seconds of fire, which would make them like Hispano V's, whereas when I test it they have almost 11 seconds of fire, which isn't as slow as a Hispano II, but not as good as the V.