Author Topic: Gun damage: Overmodelled? (Read 1497 times)

Kweassa · « **Reply #30 on:** February 23, 2002, 03:17:11 AM »

Something that still bugs me.

While the '1 ping deaths' and slow planes like Spit9s being most feared
adversary by many can be explained due to damage modelling problems
....

Why is it that gunnery distances of AH are so drastically different
compared to IL-2??

The main problem of IL-2s, the already noted discussions about trim
features and plane flight characteristics explain a lot, but still, if AH and
IL-2 both model bullet projectory and ballistics according to their own
research, shouldn't AH and IL-2 show at least a bit of simularity in
gunnery?

For instance, in AH I usually fly 109s. Can't hit anything over 500 yards
, so naturally I go in close. But the definition of 'close' in AH is like 200
-300 yards, which would still be like about 200-300 meters. Hitting a
moving target in IL-2 at 200 meters range is almost impossible. In IL-2,
I usually close in at least up to 50 meters, which would be like 50 yards
in AH. If I shoot hastily, I still miss even at 50 meters. The bullet streams
feel.. how do you say.. um.. "thin", and I can see the shots 'veering off'
very close to the target plane. The shots would miss like 1-3 feet from the
target.

In AH, I don't think I've ever experienced this sort of thing. The bullet
streams in AH seem 'thick', whereas IL-2 feels like the stream is a long
needle, the shots I fire in AH feels like sort of a large pole. That's why
even though people say there are no 'hit boxes' in AH, it still feels that
way. You close in about 300 yards, get the general direction and general
lead, and fire. Poof, the bullets all hit.

What is behind this? What's the difference??

Wilbus · « **Reply #31 on:** February 23, 2002, 07:13:27 AM »

I still think most of it has to do with AH DM, nothing bad against HTC but it is getting old. Had it since AH first got out, wasn't even very very modern then...

BenDover · « **Reply #32 on:** February 23, 2002, 08:12:08 AM »

could be worse, we could just have a health bar,lol

Wilbus · « **Reply #33 on:** February 23, 2002, 08:29:51 AM »

Yup, could be like FA *SHRUG*

Montezuma · « **Reply #34 on:** February 23, 2002, 10:27:14 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by hazed-

50 cals were not as effective as in AH and id bet evry penny i have on it.

But when i say it Im a 'luftwhiner'.

All damage models are subjective, LUFTWHINER.

hazed- · « **Reply #35 on:** February 23, 2002, 10:36:05 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Montezuma

All damage models are subjective, LUFTWHINER.

And as you have clearly demonstrated all humans are not born equal.Some, like you baby

, are amazinhunks

hehe seriously though you IL2 guys are forgetting 32 people vs 400 online.Something has to give and the DM is probably the first to need 'toning down' in accuracy.

Simply reducing damage from all cannons (and the magic 50cals)by say 30% would give AH much more of the Il2 feel.Fights would last longer.I'd have no problem with that at all.

Tac · « **Reply #36 on:** February 23, 2002, 11:04:34 AM »

hehe like the 190d9 cannons and mg's are now you mean Hazed

Doberman · « **Reply #37 on:** February 23, 2002, 12:00:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by hazed-

But when i say it Im a 'luftwhiner'. NOTHING annoys me more than infantile name calling when I know my interest in getting things changed is to make this game more fun.

More fun for whom? Certainly not the guys flying .50 calibers against the cannons.

D

Hooligan · « **Reply #38 on:** February 23, 2002, 12:58:56 PM »

Kweassa:

The bullet stream in AH is definitely not a tube but a Cone (i.e. dispersion is modelled). You can use the target feature in offline mode to see it.

Hooligan

hazed- · « **Reply #39 on:** February 24, 2002, 06:54:17 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Doberman

More fun for whom? Certainly not the guys flying .50 calibers against the cannons.

D

doberman i mean an overall reduction in lethality of all the guns not just 50 cals.

the 303s and 7.92mm etc could stay as they are.

if you dont think it would be more fun then try what I did with Citabria in the DA. take 202's or any plane with smalll caliber Mgs and have dogfights using just thes small mgs.you will lose pieces but the fight will last longer and it REALLY becomes a battle of wits.Honestly, its a great fun.

(btw i lost almost every fight

)

LLv34_Camouflage · « **Reply #40 on:** February 24, 2002, 07:35:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kweassa

Why is it that gunnery distances of AH are so drastically different
compared to IL-2??

The main problem of IL-2s, the already noted discussions about trim features and plane flight characteristics explain a lot, but still, if AH and IL-2 both model bullet projectory and ballistics according to their own research, shouldn't AH and IL-2 show at least a bit of simularity in gunnery?

For instance, in AH I usually fly 109s. Can't hit anything over 500 yards , so naturally I go in close. But the definition of 'close' in AH is like 200 -300 yards, which would still be like about 200-300 meters. Hitting a moving target in IL-2 at 200 meters range is almost impossible. In IL-2, I usually close in at least up to 50 meters, which would be like 50 yards in AH. If I shoot hastily, I still miss even at 50 meters. The bullet streams feel.. how do you say.. um.. "thin", and I can see the shots 'veering off' very close to the target plane. The shots would miss like 1-3 feet from the
target.

In AH, I don't think I've ever experienced this sort of thing. The bullet streams in AH seem 'thick', whereas IL-2 feels like the stream is a long needle, the shots I fire in AH feels like sort of a large pole. That's why even though people say there are no 'hit boxes' in AH, it still feels that way. You close in about 300 yards, get the general direction and general lead, and fire. Poof, the bullets all hit.

What is behind this? What's the difference??

Excellent post!

Camo

AmRaaM · « **Reply #41 on:** February 25, 2002, 09:52:36 PM »

Gun damage modeling in AH is porked. Hit a buff with 50s and 1/4 the systems and controls fall off. Hit a b17 with 20 30mm and it flies along many times not even smoking. As far as buff guns go, the biggest problem with them is that 1/2 of them shoot right through the buffs structure. In reality the top turret could not fire dead 6 unless elevated 30+ degrees (depending on buffs model) otherwise it would shoot the vert stab. off the plane. the bottom turret was restricted also, in AH both these twin gunned turrets easily fire through the buffs body thus tripling the firepower in most cases. Correct the gun angles and you'll find it much easier to get on a buffs tail and shoot it down. One more problem is the 50s on the buffs arent modeled as 50cals more like 15mm @ 1500fps add to this the icons and the overly large renditions of the aircraft for pixilation reasons its easy to kill most fighters under 1000mtrs and out to 1.5-1.7K you can still take a wing off many trailing fighters even in the 3-9 positions.

Solution: correct the angles, projectile modeling, and maybe make the buffs tougher or with more systems to damage, like hydraulics ect. how about engines that catch fire and if not shut down soon will explode ect...

As it stands now... a b17 makes one hell of a fighter escort.

mrsid2 · « **Reply #42 on:** February 26, 2002, 03:55:14 AM »

I agree Amraam..

What goes to AH and IL2 modelling, does IL2 have dispersion modeled at all?

Those stories sound like the bullet stream there would be an extremely thin stick, if one bullet misses all bullets miss.

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #43 on:** February 26, 2002, 04:40:52 AM »

I still wonder how 50% of dead six 50" pings kill my radiator ...
Or how a dead 50" six ping may cause any damage to the pilot in a 190D9 with 14mm and 8mm armour plating for the pilot. Or how a short 50" burst from a B17 CUT both wings of a Ta152H in a 9 o'clock diving aproach at 1000 yards.

Having 50", why to use 20mm HE bullets??

In RL, is it possible to cut a fighter's wing with 10 12mm hits?? IMO, at best, 10 small holes.

mrsid2 · « **Reply #44 on:** February 26, 2002, 04:57:45 AM »

Actually the radiator hits can be explained with wing guns and convergence - the hits come from sides not dead six /|\ vs |||.

As what goes with buff .50 cutting wings with a sneeze of a touch, it's a gameplay concession.

If buffs were modeled realistically, they'd have no chance to survive in the main arena because they usually fly alone.

Maybe the buff max altitude should be reduced to reasonable levels (say, 22k max) and leave the guns as they are.
The rayguns really become a problem only when the buff reaches near 30k, it's extremely stupid and frustrating to try to attack one that high.

Or then let buffs climb where they do right now and make the gun effectiveness realistic.

The allied sent buffs in huge formations without airsupport in the beginning of the war because they THOUGHT they were able to defend themselves.. Well they weren't. And it cost them several crews.

Here a B17 can be sent to support the poor fighters. I'm not scared to attack 2:1 fighters anytime, but I'm not dumb enough to try to attack a lone b17 alone anymore. Only way to survive from that is to have the buff gunner suck.