Author Topic: Gun damage: Overmodelled? (Read 680 times)

SirLoin · « **Reply #45 on:** February 26, 2002, 06:15:04 AM »

I think to gun lethality in AH is very good for gameplay,but agree if cannons were toned down a tad,it might be more fun...I love flying the P51b more than any other plane because if it's weak lethality..It's just plain old fun having to unload more than a snapshout of lead to see him go to pieces..In fact my fave scenario is getting behind a P47 and peppering him with just two guns till he finally goes down >..Kinda reminds me of RB3D when I get into those battles...

IL2's damage model is undermodeled to me..Not only that,but the bobbing that your plane does when you try to shoot makes the game all but unplayable...Has nothing to do with joystick settings...That and the fact you can use trim to increase your turn rate(eg..cheat) keeps this otherwise fine sim on my shelf.

Tac..Glad you liked the movie...

Wilbus · « **Reply #46 on:** February 26, 2002, 08:12:50 AM »

cannons toned DOWN? Have you ever used MG151's? Go in the TA with someone, put about 10-15 50 cal in the wing of an enemy fighter (not P38, F6F or LA7) and the wing will rip off, do this with MG 151 it'll take 4+ hits or with hispano 2-4. A fighter was vrought down by about 5 20mm hits, or 1 30mm (very very lucky to survive a 30mm). Dammage modell in AH just very old IMO and with a more realistic DM the 50's might be more realistic.

Kweassa · « **Reply #47 on:** February 26, 2002, 09:32:57 AM »

Now, Hooligan said:

Quote

"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."

Now, what bothers me is IL-2 also claims that they have dispersion modelled. Two games depict a same machine gun(let's say MG131), they both probably use simular sources(rate of fire.. ballistics.. velocity etc.).. Yes, there might be some differences in how they translate the data from the sources into visual representation. But why does it differ so much?

If the same sources, or at least, different but simular sources are used in modelling the gunnery, wouldn't it be like, for example, if people can actually hit someone so easily at 300-400 meters in AH, shouldn't it be pretty easy to kill something in IL-2 at pretty simulat distances like 200-300 meters?

Sirloin pointed out

Quote

"IL2's damage model is undermodeled to me..Not only that,but the bobbing that your plane does when you try to shoot makes the game all but unplayable...Has nothing to do with joystick settings...That and the fact you can use trim to increase your turn rate(eg..cheat) keeps this otherwise fine sim on my shelf."

I agree that the super twitchy IL-2 FM makes it hard to aim something. But the bobbing or jiggling motions caused by inappropriate handling of the plane also makes it tough to aim in AH(for instance, bad rudder action, or typical 'newbie aiming'). The problem is when the trim status seems generally stable. In AH, when you attain a good stable position behind the enemy, you can just easily set your site on the enemy and pull the trigger. Not much of painstaking super-fine tuning is required. People shoot, targets hit, wing falls off. It's easy to assume someone is practically 'dead' when you have something behind you at about 300 yards level flight in AH. In IL-2, you can't just generally 'point' the site at enemy and shoot, because it will miss. You have to point the site, then have to really fine tune it at super close distances to see something is hit. Where is this difference coming from? Assuming my marksmanship doesn't drastically differ when I play AH and when I play IL-2, this difference in ability to hit is confusing.

Mathman · « **Reply #48 on:** February 26, 2002, 11:52:53 AM »

What the problem is with the damage model in ANY computer simulation is that you lose the factor of random chance that occurs in real life. Why is it that a pilot like Robert Johson can have his plane shot to hell and make it back where another pilot's plane is not hit nearly as often or as much and the pilot be forced to bail or crash while in the same type of plane?

Can a half second burst from 6 50's really have taken out a B-17 in ww2? Probably, at some point, it would have, had the 17's been attacked by planes with 6 50's. Odd things happen in real life. In a sim, there is no way to accurately code in the random nature of the real world.

Il-2's gunnery is good. Tough to kill things in those planes, but is it due to superior damage modelling or the twitchy/mushy fm or the overmodelling of some planes vs. the guns of others? My guess would be that it is a combination of all those things. The same thing can be said for the DM/Gunnery in AH. Which is better? I sure as hell don't know, I have never fought World War 2 fighters in real life and definitely not in anyhting approaching a historical context.

I like the DM in AH. It makes the game fun and enjoyable. I like the DM in Il-2. It makes the game funa nd enjoyable.

Just my 2/5 of a nickel's worth
-math

SKurj · « **Reply #49 on:** February 27, 2002, 09:17:48 PM »

Fighter aircraft are not as 'floaty' in AH as in IL2. Sure the plane maybe slightly unstable in roll, but in yaw....

Andy Bush commented on this .. IL2 is more difficult to aim because the platform is too unstable... unrealistaically so...

So to kill in IL2 you have to get closer... because it more difficult to aim.

SKurj

SKurj · « **Reply #50 on:** February 27, 2002, 09:22:11 PM »

Oh OH OH...

Here is my solution.... EARLY WAR PLANESET!! very few cannon birds!! the snapshot loses its effectiveness!!

ahh that would be awesome +)

I loved the damage modelling (aside from bugs) in RB2. Of course the pilot kill was the best +) but being able to tear the machine apart around the pilot lol was great fun +)

SKurj

Slayer · « **Reply #51 on:** March 03, 2002, 08:16:54 AM »

I know a waist gunner that was shot down twice in his b17. He is still working a part time job today. Just remember when vewing the films that only about every 4 th to 6th round is traced. He was talking about how he hated the 190's much more then the 109's. Kinda intresting and rare to find someone that will talk about their war experience.

milnko · « **Reply #52 on:** March 03, 2002, 09:14:43 AM »

Credit for following goes to http://www.combatsim.com/

The Dinah off Okinawa was low to the water and was a match for the F6F-5 Hellcat in speed.

The two 1,500 h.p. Mitsubishi fourteen cylinder radials strained to out pull the Pratt & Whitney eighteen cylinder behind pumping out its 2,200 water-methanol injected horsepower.

The pursuing Harris "Mitch" Mitchell fired too low and saw tiny splashes behind the quick moving recon plane.
Then he saw the tracers above his canopy from his squadron mates. Using this as a guide he picked up the snout of the Grumman to watch his fire stream into the Ki-46. One engine blazed and the sleek plane cartwheeled into the ocean. This, his sixth kill, was taken at "somewhere over a half mile."

-- VALENCIA'S FLYING CIRCUS --

The long running chase caused no problems for the F6F's engine and later in the same mission Mitchell scored his seventh and eighth kills downing two Ki 84 Franks.

Harris had fired at long range since the lengthy pursuit allowed only very slow closing rates with the fleet-winged Japanese Army plane. This was May 4, 1945.

Mitch was pretty monotone in his description to me, not making a big deal out of a long-range shot that most pilots could only dream of. But he had grown up hunting and firearms trajectory was not something new to him. This man had flown wing for the famed Eugene Valencia that tallied twenty-three by war's end.

Mitchell's triple was a repeat of the famous April 17th engagement where Valencia got six enemy aircraft and Mitch got three near Kyushu.
They had come across a forty plane Kamikaze force heading towards their carrier group.

"I just kept shooting 'em off Gene's butt every time one would latch on," drawled the Texan, so nonchalant was his description of the huge action.

Clinton Smith scored the second of his war total of six and James French knocked down four of his final total of eleven. The four men had scored fourteen kills between them! It was a similar experience to that of David McCampbell's and Roy Rushing's where they got fifteen kills against a Kamikaze formation except these guys did fight back.

Harris Mitchell ended his wartime string of ten victories with two KI 61 Tonys a week later.

Those of you in PC flight simulators who have wondered how realistic it is to shoot down E/A-enemy aircraft at long range need wonder no more.

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #53 on:** March 04, 2002, 03:06:55 AM »

Finaly I got my copy of "Gun Camera Footage of WW2".

What I saw there is that 20mm hits produced really big bangs and the LW pilots were firing at buffs as close as 50 - 200 yards and by dead six most of the time.

About the 50", all the footage shows hits at about 300 yards or less, and causing little or null structural damage. In the other hand, each time these 50" impacted a fuel tank, specially the external drop tanks, fire and BOOM.

There is a sequence of a P40 firing at a transport, it fired and fired and fired and hits, hits and hits, but the transport managed to land with no visual structural damage.

Most if not all the downed planes were on fire or exploding, this is very rare in AH.

And yep, while buff defensive fire seems very weak, buff engines were extremely hard to damage.

Kweassa · « **Reply #54 on:** March 04, 2002, 03:24:03 AM »

Excuse me, but still I can't help but wonder

..

Is such instances portrayed in Milenko's tale something common?? Or, can it be said that those pilots are a worthy subject for such war time stories because people with those abilities were very rare? Because, in the story itself there is a line saying " ....not making a big deal out of a long-range shot that most pilots could only dream of...".

I certainly don't feel the long range shots as something 'rare', or something to make 'big deal of' in AH, although the overall situation of WWII pilots portrayed in the story suggests, in fact, many many pilots did consider long-range shots something to 'make big deal of'.

I think the discussions of gunnery and damage modelling currently, and the discussion on the long range shots brought up by me(

sorry~ ) is something to do with the 'ease' of long range shots happening, rather than something that disputes the possibility itself.

For instance, I know it is possible to hit a target at 600 yards+ with MG151/20s in AH. But for me, it is a pretty hard thing to do. Very rare occurence if I say so myself, since it takes some skill in aiming. Now, it is (in my opinion) quite undebatable that .50s and Hispanos, Type99s hit long range shots with relative ease. AH Spit pilots, or P-51 pilots I've met tend to think 500~600 yards as an 'easy shot'.

What I'm questioning is shouldn't the point of distance where it is considered 'a pretty hard shot.. it takes some skill and luck' be quite shorter? For instance, I'm suggesting that with superior guns like .50s or Hispanos, 200~400 yards should be considered an 'easy shot', while the guns with more drop tendency such as MG series should consider about 150~250 yards an 'easy shot'.. anything further than that being considered a 'hard, long range shot'. 500~1000 yards should be a range that takes a lot of skill and quite a bit of luck to hit something with any sort of guns, in my opinion. <- This sort of opinion is the premise behind all my questions

Now, ultimately, would something like a 600 yard shot 'in real life'(

sorry again) be 'a long range shot, very hard to do' or 'bit of a range but pretty easy shot if the enemy is straight and level'??

Thx for reading my crappy post

mrsid2 · « **Reply #55 on:** March 04, 2002, 04:29:37 AM »

In real life most planes didn't have ammo counters, they didn't have every other round with tracers, they had to save ammo because they needed extra to maybe save their lives.. The ammo was expensive during wartime.

Most of the pilots probably never even went for the long distance shots because in many cases it would have been just wasted ammo. If pilots would spray around like newbies in AH (1k up to 3k) wasting ammo like that, they'd come out with red ears from the XO's barrack

Vector · « **Reply #56 on:** March 04, 2002, 11:37:46 AM »

Mrsid2, that depends. In SWP P-47 pilots sprayed pretty good, lots of ammo, why to save them? Neel Kearby killed an enemy fighter from 1500 yards with several second burst. HO's were very common too. Sometimes pilot collapsed to get cover from big radial engine during the HO, so in a word, they indeed sprayed

mrsid2 · « **Reply #57 on:** March 04, 2002, 04:39:07 PM »

Exception makes the rule.

illo · « **Reply #58 on:** March 05, 2002, 06:45:42 AM »

Well finnish fighter jocks said worst point about otherwise good soviet pilots was that they opened fire at too long ranges rarely hitting at anything. And that was reason number 1 for not being succesful.

You know Hans Wind had his convergence at 50m most other pilots at 150m.
Under 50m and with good gunnery you could expect almost 100% hit percentage in certain part of aircraft.

Anyway i am under imperession that better pilots generally got closer to shoot. Most newbies were too impatient to hold their fire and warned enemy too early giving him change to escape.