Please Fix the IL-2 37mm Accuracy

[waystin2]

The accuracy of the IL-2 with 37mm needs to be fixed.  It is far too accurate as currently modeled.  Based on historical documentation it was impossible to hit a target with any accuracy using sustained fire of more than 2-3 shells at a time. The current model allows for sustained fire with no accuracy penalty for the massive jolting that occurs when the cannons are fired in long bursts.

"Proving ground trials carried out at NII AV VVS KA (this abbreviation means 'Science Lab of the Air Force of Red Army'), showed that firing of the NS-37 in the IL-2 was to be done in short controlled bursts-no more than 2-3 shells a burst. This was to be done in accordance with the fact that the cannons were not synchronized to fire together -resulting in massive jolting of the aircraft which disrupted the aircraft's line of fire. The correction of fire was possible in this case."

See link for more information and supporting documentation:
http://www.battlefield.ru/content/view/239/123/lang,en/

[Ghosth]

I almost never fire bursts at all, unless its a hail mary shot at a fighter some 1k or more in front of me.

That being said I would have no problem with it being adjusted so that after 3 rounds it starts "walking the dog" working the plane back and forth as they get out of sync.

[moot]

Game vs. reality.  Lots of differences between the two.. Perfectly still air, etc.  Before asking for a fix, it needs to be demonstrated that it wouldn't be an artificial fix.  That the current omissions in the physics (e.g. perfectly still air) aren't what's to blame for the discrepency between the game and reality.  Which would mean that all other planes/guns are on the same even ground.

[Yeager]

You want the game to be more like reality?  If this game moved 10% towards a more realistic ballistics/damage/lethality model 90% of the people who play today could not/would not hack it.

Enjoy the game you have today, its about as good as its going to get.

[waystin2]

Thank you gentleman for your responses to this thread.

 

[thrila]

If the guns weren't synched in real life as the article suggests, then it should be modelled unsynched in AH.  I remember when the hurri-2d guns weren't synched in AH, the gunsight was thrown all over the place.

[Kazaa]

If you perk the 37mm and the WB, then you should perk ord too.

[Krusty]

If you're shooting more than 3 bursts (firing 1 rd from each gun), in a single dive on a GV, you're missing anyways and it's already modeled in.

Even some of the longest attack runs I've made on a single tank I've only fired 3 bursts total before pulling up to avoid augering.

[waystin2]

Hello Krusty,

It sounds like you are using the IL-2 in a more historical manner, and not spraying everything you have at a target.  However the accuracy issue with the cannons does exist, and I do not see this in the current model.  There should be a huge site picture disruption when fired in long bursts due to the unsychronized cannons.  The model needs to be changed to reflect this.

Have a great day,

Way

[Anaxogoras]

Wow, it's refreshing to take some time away from the boards.  That was a good, reasonable request, waystin; you even backed it up with some kind of evidence.

Fwiw, dweebs like me use 10-20 rpg to kill a tank/wirbel with the Il-2, and I usually try to get those off in the first pass (because I don't plan on surviving long).

[moot]

You need to pinpoint the exact reason for the discrepency, to eliminate the possibility that the game's environment simply precludes that historical trait.  For example: at the time, the Ta 152 literally failed to be stable enough for gunnery trials.  This same instability, in AH's perfectly still air, translates into a mediocre but manageable gun platform.

[waystin2]

You need to pinpoint the exact reason for the discrepency, to eliminate the possibility that the game's environment simply precludes that historical trait.  For example: at the time, the Ta 152 literally failed to be stable enough for gunnery trials.  This same instability, in AH's perfectly still air, translates into a mediocre but manageable gun platform.

Hello Moot,

How would you suggest that I go about doing this?  My thought was first of all to use the .target command at a few different distances and convergences to see what the spread truly is at this point.  Doing this in the ground and in the air would at least give me a true read on whether there is disruption modeled at all.  Do you have any other suggestions?  Your help is appreciated!

Have a great day,

Way

[moot]

I reckon it's the flight modeling that gives us more stability than the planes had in reality.  It's my cumulative gut feeling from everything I've read and heard.  There's a number of short-comings in the FM.  For example, planes don't hammerhead as well as they ought to.  This is from someone who flies acrobatic in reality.  Level acceleration doesn't perfectly match reality either: e.g. the AH Tempest is one of the strongest accelerators, but historical trials show it was at the other end of the spectrum.  Or like I said, we have perfectly still air.  The Ta152 as modeled in the game wavers a lot unless you keep it in check with very steady inputs, and I reckon if we had real skies with varying winds, drafts, turbulence, etc, it would be much more like the real Ta152 that was borderline unsuitable for combat because of instabilities.... So that's how I see it - it's more due to the flight model, and adding an artificial dispersion to the Ta152 or Il2's guns if my hunch is correct, wouldn't be the right thing to do.

To answer your question, I read the battlefield.ru article ..

The worsening of flight characteristics of the new Shturmovik, as with the IL-2 with the ShFK-37, was due to a large mass/wing ratio and the design of the cannon pods which lowered the aerodynamic performance of the aircraft. From an overall point of view, the IL-2 had poor balance; this indefinitely lowered cannon accuracy. This major factor was amplified by the strong recoil of the cannons during firing. According to NII VA VVS KA data (a letter of NII AV General-Major M.V. Gurevich, from 19.11.1943, to S.V. Ilyushin), the maximum strength of the recoil , present for .03 seconds, on a ground-based platform(existing technology of that time didn't allow the measuring of "the strength of recoil" in aircraft and much less in the air during firing) consisted of a considerable amount - 5500 kg, with a recoil average of 2500 kg. All of this contributed to the wide dispersal of shells during aerial firing.

What exactly does that mean?  e.g. "Wide dispersal"?  They qualify it all negatively, but it's all too vague for us to try and replicate their trials.  Not in any way that I can think of...  Not unless someone can find a copy of the reference documents with more details of those trials.

[thrila]

m00t i don't believe it would require HTC to model dispersion per se, having the guns unsynched would cause the aircraft to yaw because of the the effects of recoil- which AH models.  That said i don't know if the guns are synched or not in AH because i don't really fly the il-2.

The old hurricane-2d did behaved in a similar manner as mentioned in the il-2 article.  I can understand if unsynched guns doesn't sound like a big deal but it will affect aiming noticably.  If you like m00t (or anyone else) I have a retro copy of aces high 1.08 which i can send you to demonstrate how recoil affected the old hurri.

Linking big guns in an aircraft is a pretty sensible thing to do, i'm surprised the russians didn't synchronise them.

[moot]

I remember the old HurriD's wagging..