Dont forget about the F4U-1D

[Skorpyon]

Toad....
Thank God someone has echoed what I have been saying all along... uber, shmuber, let's just check the accuracy of the modeling of the cannons.  I have asked a few times on the board if anyone has any data that shows the Hispanos to be as much more damaging as a comparable axis cannon set is, but no one has been able to provide such info.  If indeed the Hispanos on a 1-c were truly as powerful as they are modeled here, then by all means leave them.  If any of the other cannons are under modeled, by all means, improve them.  If the 1-c Hispanos are over modeled, by all means correct them.  Let's just encourage ACCURACY in the modeling.  HTC has been very responsive to so many other modeling concerns provided by the community, and I am hoping this issue is being looked into as well, if nothing else for the sake of the game.  As no one else has provided any data, maybe it is difficult to find... I don't know.  But let us ALL quit the bickering and ALL work toward encouraging an accurate model, whether it be as currently exists or after modification.
As always, my two cents, given free of charge!  

------------------
Skorpyon
I/JG2 ~Richthofen~
"Feel the Sting......"

[Pongo]

 

Originally posted by -lazs-:


Which brings us full circle... For the vast majority of players, cannon planes are the only option in the arena.   for a very few skilled players who also have a lot of patience... The added ammo of .50's planes can be an asset over the cannon.  
lazs

Skilled players like you...
Most of the cannons in the game dont have an aquisition tone. Most of us have to work for our kills and show some patience. 50s work well at the top and bottom of the accuracy scale. For guys in the 4 % range the ammo load gives them lots of chance to hit. For guys in the 12% range they can pick there shots and be deadly with 6 50s at a better range then MOST of the cannons. for the rest the typical cannon is probably better. In the case of the HS cannon it surrenders nothing to the 50 in accuracy and range. So it is signifigantly more useful then the 50.  

[Pongo]

 

Originally posted by Hooligan:
Juzz:

I believe that excepting firepower, durability and roll-rate the P-51D does everything better than the F4U-1D in this game.  I certainly find it to be a far superior ride.

Also the US did experiment with 20mm armament for nearly every US fighter type,
but they preferred the 6x.50 weapon set.  This indicates to me that the difference in effectiveness between 6x.50 and 4xHispano in the real world was much less than it is in AH.

Some of the Allison-engined P-51s were armed with 4x20mm Hispano with 125 rounds per gun.  These are lighter slightly more agile aircraft than the P-51D and would make wicked arena aircraft under 15k.

Hooligan

Hooligan that is the kind of reasoning that gets me in trouble.
In this case some of the major disadvantages of the HS are not in the game. For much of its early mid war carrer it was not considered as reliable as the mgs that it was going to replace. The US in particulare seemed to feel this. That is a big reason for the 303s on the spit. They were worried that the HS would jam. For strafing it is not as signifigant. But for air to air you gotta have a gun. As the us was against mixed gun packages. It was either the powerful HS which they did not trust or 50s which they did.  I dont know if it was the HS use in the 38 ro 39 that black balled it for Air to Air use in the US but it definatly was black balled.
In the case of the 51 the US went so far as to build a P51B with 4 20s....ouch.

[Koed]

Just on the subject of .50 's vs cannons.. I must be the worst pilot to date in AH but I can tell you what my experiences are. I've been flying cannon AC for a while and since a week or so I've givin my heart to the pony. You see, I can easily stay on the tail of most pilots, but my aiming sux. And I found that with most cannon AC's I just realy realy have to work to get 1 or 2 pings in there. With the .50 you don't have to be so accurate, you just squeeze and make 'm ping like fireworks. Hey, I even did my first 3 kill sortie in a P51-D.. I guess what I want to say is, it's a matter of taste or technique what type of guns you like...
I'd rather have a fast turning fast flying 6 x .50 AC .. than a tank with wings..

[-lazs-]

funked... 6 .50's wouldn't fit in that sissy wing.

sox... you are of course right about turning being a last option but even "real" WWII pilots spent a lot of time having fun in mock combat with their buds and doing a lot of turning.  When things got low in actual combat(like they do a lot in AH), these guys did a lot of turning.  Real pilots were aggressive and there would be a lot of turning when they fought in such a small combat area.  

 This is a game of fun with artificial short combat distances to speed up the action.  I believe that the AH turn rates are off 50% from "real life" numbers.  The artificially slow turn rates take away the option to turn and slow down the gameplay.

pongo... did I say I was "skilled"?.  

Certainly you can work around the poor turn rates of AH planes.  You can also make the .50's work well with the right technique.   does that negate making these things more realistic?
lazs  

[This message has been edited by -lazs- (edited 05-29-2000).]

[funked]

Lazs, if 8 x 303 could fit, I'm sure 6 x 50 would be no problem.

[Rocket]

In talking with HT in the arena some time ago he stated ALL guns are historically accurate on modeling #s.  
What we seem to lack is some type of jamming or overheating causing the barrels to spit shells all over the place.
If the reason the navy didn't want the cannon hogs was unreliability due to gun jams then maybe this could be added to the game.  You want a cannon ride then take the chance of a gun(s) jamming.  Of course this should apply to the non cannon guns.
This may cut down on some 1k spray and pray kills and standing on the trigger till the ammo is gone.
HTC has taken a lot of time and effort to give us historical bullet data in the gunnery model and the have tried to insure that it is as accurate as possible.  The only thing that could make it more historic IMHO is adding the random failures real pilots had to worry about.

And I will continue to fly my 1D for the challenge. I know the ride has great guns, poor climb, poor turning and no way to out run anything here if you get in trouble.  But to me it makes it more worthwhile when I get my kill.  And if I feel like a quick set of kills I will dust off my barbiefire and kill like a madman  

S!
Rocket

[funked]

To me it's pretty obvious.

In WW2 it was not so easy to score a hit.

So rate of fire and ballistics were preferred over hitting power.  The important thing was to get bullets on target.  With the exception of rifle-caliber MG's, if they could get hits they could get a kill.

In here, I think my grandma could score hits at 300 yds.  Everybody can get hits, so the deciding factor is which hits do more damage.

And in the real deal, they didn't have to blow a wing off to get a kill.  When there was real fire and real fear, and a real ground coming up, pilots would abandon a damaged plane in cases where a sim pilot would keep fighting.

And even if there wasn't enough damage to require a bailout, there could be enough damage to require a ditch.  And if a pilot saw the bad guy ditch after damaging him, the pilot got a kill.

In here there are (incredibly) no kills for ditches.  Even if there were, we'd still go for total destruction of the enemy because we are score hounds.  If we let him ditch, some other guy might steal our glory, so we pump ammo into him until he goes blooey.

In the real deal the goal was to protect bombers, or protect a ground target, or protect one's ass!  If the enemy was damaged enough to be out of combat, he was ignored.

So it's two problems:
1.  In AH it's easy to get hits, so the emphasis is on damage caused per hit.
2.  AH Kills are much different from real kills.

[Nashwan]

The Spit wing had room for 4 20mm AND 4 303s.
If that lot could fit in there all at once then I am sure 6 40cal would have been no problem.
Of course, if the RAF had been shooting don B17s like in AH then 4 20mm would have been a lot more common on Spits.

[jmccaul]

You think about the the F4u -1C fuss then imagine this (in a RPS!)
=================================
On the 4th December 1939 Supermarine produced their specification for the Mk IV, the main characteristics being an aircraft, powered by the new Griffon engine, capable of reaching 420 mph and able to climb to 15,000 ft in only 4 1/2 minutes. Endurance was also increased by half an hour. With modifications carried out on the Mk III airframe, the only major changes to be done to the new Spitfire were to design new engine mountings and add an additional fuel tank in the fuselage. After seeing the results of the wind tunnel tests at Farnborough, the Air Ministry announced its plans to introduce the Mk IV into the RAF by the end of 1941. The RAF requested that the new spitfire carried either 6 X 20 mm cannons, 2 X 20 mm cannons and 8 X .303 Browning machine guns or 12 X .303 Brownings. Supermarine elected to go for the six cannon requirement and it was planned to have the aircraft airworthy by August 1941. This was rather over ambitious and the first Mk IV did not fly until 27th November 1941.

====================================

[juzz]

Hehehe, I seen photos of that beasty too.  

[-lazs-]

funked.. i agree.  I think it is too easy to get hits placing too much emphisis on the power of the munitions.  More dispertion would help the fifties.   A hit with a couple fifty rounds is a whole lot better than a bunch of misses with 20's.

i still feel that the leathiality of the fifties is off a little comparitively.    The damage model is slightly beter in AH  than WB and the leathiality is higher but the ratio of leathiality between fifties and 20mm is still allmost the same in both sims at around 3/1.   Both sims fail to model a lot of vital components in the ac's that would be damaged by AP rounds/penetration.   Things like oxygen bottles, ammo boxes, and electrical and hyd. leaks.  I think that if more things were modeled the fifties and AP rounds would creep up some in leathiality comparitively speaking.  At least AH models coolant hits tho.
lazs  

[Vermillion]

 

In WW2 it was not so easy to score a hit.

Are you sure funked?

Or could it be that a more correct statement would be "In WW2 it was not so easy for the average WWII pilot to score a hit"?

If the ballistics are correct, and for the purposes of this debate lets assume they are, and dispersion is definitely in the system as Funked himself points out so often, where is the difference?

Hit detection is always an area to scrutinize, but I haven't seen any shots that I thought should/shouldn't have hit, that have, so I don't think we are "shooting beachballs". Anyone else seen a problem here?

So again where is the difference between our game and WWII? I think its simple.

It the players, and the "game" environment we play in. Not necessarily the modeling.

In one week of playing Aces High, the average player has more gunnery experience and skill, than all but the "Hartmann Quality" of Ace. And we all know that in the game (and in RL for that matter) gunnery is an aquired skill. The more you do it, the better you get.

We also play in an environment where we get perfect ranging information via the icons, and we also have a perfect hit feedback system, via the "hit flash". So we know exactly how far away the badguy is, and we can adjust fire easily since we know exactly when we hit him.

So you basically have two choices.

1.) Change the gunnery system to produce "historic" results. In other words, no matter how skilled the sim pilot is, he must get into "average historic parameters" (100-200 yards) to get hits. This is the route that WB's has taken, and the reason for the past year of their constant tinkering with the gun system.

or

2.) You model the guns, aircraft, environment, and hit detection, as accurately as you can and see what happens.

So it comes down to , which do you want?

Real Guns? or Historic results?

Personally, I like the Real Guns approach.



------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"

[funked]

Vermillion, I have some doubts about the hit detection code.  But I can't "prove" my doubts so I won't rant about it.

However there are several other factors at play:

The fact that we can see gigantic hit flashes at ridiculous ranges.

Plus the laser range finder.

Plus the fact that we can see hit flashes THROUGH OUR INSTRUMENT PANEL.

Plus the fact that we can use the icon to aim at a con that is under our nose.

Plus the fact that we can use long bursts without increasing dispersion and wear on the barrel.

Plus the fact that there is no turbulence or prop wash.

Add those up, and Yes, I think it's much easier to hit in here than it was in the real deal.

However your point is well taken regarding the distribution of pilot gunnery skill.  I'm sure that is a factor.

I like the Real Guns approach too, but because of the factors I outlined above (plus a few that I'm surely forgetting), we don't have Real Guns.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 05-30-2000).]

[Pongo]

Real air to air gunnery probably has 10000 factors effecting that round impacting that d1.1 target and damaging it. Of those proably 100 are quite signifigant. Of those 10 are probably critical. HTC probably models 9 of the 10.
Every plane is a carbon copy of some ideal version of that plane. Every gun is likewise a carbon copy of the perfect realized spec for that gun. Like wise for each round. Even without considering stopages the small differences between the battey and the 9991 things that HTC cannot include in the game as they are individually to insignifigant are the difference between hitting a fighter at 900 and wasting your rounds and probably ruining your guns with that long burst.
As all of us know the biggest thing missing from the top 10 factors is the rangefinding.
From what I have seen of the range finding gunsights they didnt have a concept of shooting at 1k. I guess they must have had a > 600 setting. When you set the wingspan indicators to that small they probably showed a get "GET REAL" warning.
We all know that this is deliberate.

So no we dont have realisic guns. But they are more realistic than any I have seen in a game.