Dispersion comparison

[funked]

Grunherz you're full of toejam and shut up!

 

You asked for it!!!  

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by SOB:
None of this makes a whole hell of a lot of difference since bullet dispersion is being changed across the board in 1.05.  How 'bout you wait until then, and squeak about that gunnery model      

Pyro's post dont say they are fixing **some** guns. Seems they are "fixing" ALL guns.

So those circles will have half the radius as they have now. The problem will still be there as the problem right now is not big dispersion in ALL guns, but big dispersion of some planes' guns compared with others...

Even more, the Chog problem may be bigger. From having turbolasers they will move to have Photon Torpedoes.

Damn it, SOB, the other day I downloaded one sight there was in the Training forum that required to put the head higher in the cockpit, set the head position to see the bullets crossing the center dot and save it there.

I have that sight now as default in most planes...in P51 I set the head position in 10 seconds, in F4U more or less the same, P38 took longer, Spit longer...

In the 190s I AM STILL TRYING TO FIGURE WHERE TO SAVE THE HEAD POSITION AS I DONT SEE A PATTERN ON THE SMOKE TRAILS!!

It feels like firing a shotgun. No kidding that just 20 minutes ago a Spitfire crossed twice my bullet stream and he got no hits...again. (With my old sight, and default head position)


Jig, 300yard convergence here for all the cannons. Tried to set the head for the A5 with 2x20mm.

I am still trying to figure where to put the head as some rounds go higher, some lower, some more higher, some less higher, some more lower...etc.

I could set it roughly in the middle of the "Pattern", but I chose to set my old gunsite. At least that one sets the dot in the middle, and I can *imagine* that some rounds will go there.

[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 12-16-2000).]

[SOB]

   

Originally posted by RAM:
So those circles will have half the radius as they have now. The problem will still be there as the problem right now is not big dispersion in ALL guns, but big dispersion of some planes' guns compared with others...

My point is, they're changing the dispersion, and you don't know that what you stated above will be the case.  The new change could completely alieviate the problem.  Perhaps the current problem (if there is one...i wouldn't know either way) is caused by the differences in the way the different ammos are modeled...like ammo weight, muzzle velocity, etc, combined with the fact that there's currently a random dispersion.

Anyhow, just saying the gunnery is changing, and your problem may be fixed with it.


SOB

BTW...Jig, my responce wasn't to you  

[This message has been edited by SOB (edited 12-16-2000).]

[funked]

 

So those circles will have half the radius as they have now.

Nope.  Currently the dispersion is truly random.  Each shot has equal likelihood of landing anywhere "in the circle".  Pyro said they are going to a "center-weighted" dispersion which means the same circle size, but shots are more likely to land near the center of the circle.

[fats]

--- funked ----
Pyro said they are going to a "center-weighted"
--- end ---


What causes dispersion? If it's mostly the gun barrel vibrating then center-weighed seems funny to me. The barrel will spend most time at or near the extreme positions and will spend the least time near the center.

That's prolly too simplified guesswork to make any difference.


// fats

[Fatty]

Jigster (or anyone else) I posted this in the other thread, putting it here too.  I think for true accuracy you need to have some sort of backstop so you're not trying to judge what tracers to draw the circles on, you can look at hit marks.  Should be possible if someone made a custom terrain with a cliff wall at the end of a runway (someone with more patience than me).

[Jekyll]

Fats, actually the opposite is true.  The dispersion of the rounds from the true gun barrel line should be a normal distribution both vertically and horizontally.  With this kind of distribution the greatest concentration of rounds should be towards the centre of the GBL with a decreasing percentage of rounds as you move out to the extremities.

It sure shouldnt be a simple random distribution.

Oh and funked... you fly the Spitfire/Hog combination a LOT, don't you  


[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 12-17-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 12-17-2000).]

[bolillo_loco]

does it supprise you that the corsair is the best, even better than planes that have nose armament and no convergence.

[fats]

Jekyll,


The frequency that the barrel returns to center is somewhat in sync with the ROF not to cause the bullets to concentrate on the outter rims?

I guess my theory would have been true if the bullets were fired at random interval over a period of time. But since the fact that a bullet is fired causes the barrel to move in the first place it doesn't quite apply...

// fats

[funked]

Jekyll I shoot down a lot of hogs in my Spits, Tiffies, and Jugs.  

[Andy Bush]

Guys...I think you are over-playing this barrel movement thing. Projectile ballistics is also a major consideration, as is barrel wear.

In any case, let's all remember this is a game...something to be played for fun. Regardless of which version, AH is very successful at what we all come here to find...fun!

For those that want to learn the finer points, here's my suggestion. Go to college and graduate. Then go to military pilot training. Do well enough to get a fighter. Then make it thru that training. Then do well enough in your first 3-5 years to earn your squadron's recommendation for Fighter Weapons School. Finish that course, if you can...it will be a tougher academic drill than anything you had in college and far more demanding (and dangerous) flying than you ever imagined.

Then...and only then...are you qualified to get into the nuts and bolts of this.

Many folks here talk about realism. What I just described is about as real as it gets. Anything else is just bartalk and BS.

Andy

[Jigster]

deleted, prolly read more into that then was intended.

[This message has been edited by Jigster (edited 12-17-2000).]

[Toad]

Andy, if we ever meet remind me that the first six drinks are on me.    

Fatty, I would LOVE a terrain that had a backstop at the end of the runway with range markers at the side from 100 to 500 yards. What a Great idea! You could really tune a gunsite/conversion combo then.

[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 12-18-2000).]

[Andy Bush]

Jigster

You may have...and I apologize. On subsequent reading, it sounds a bit harsher than I intended.

The enthusiasm in these forums mirrors so well the atmosphere that we see in the MA. Where else can anyone find so much fun (and bang for the buck) than with AH? I'm hard pressed to think of anything. (Except perhaps the O'Club fighter bar on a Friday nite...but that's another story...!!)

On the other hand, sometimes a discussion here seems to stray away from that fun...and into technical areas that have little to do with our enjoyment of this game. My intent was to herd folks back in the 'fun' direction and away from pointless issues that ultimately contribute little to what we all come here for.

Your cautionary note is appreciated.

Andy

[fats]

I am glad Andy Bush is here to moderate the conversation. By his rules you are not allowed to ask a question unless you know the answer.


// fats