Author Topic: 700y? 800y? 1000y? oooooooh yaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh  (Read 975 times)

Offline Seeker

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2653
700y? 800y? 1000y? oooooooh yaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh
« Reply #30 on: August 03, 2001, 06:11:00 PM »
Am I correct in thinking lethality is adjustable in H2H games?

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
700y? 800y? 1000y? oooooooh yaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh
« Reply #31 on: August 03, 2001, 06:23:00 PM »
garrido,

How is the Fw190 rolling to slowly in AH?

Here is the NACA & Ah chart:

 
Thanks to Hristo for the image, I hope he doesn't mind me linking to it.

Here's some other comments on why the NACA test may not be completely applicable to AH:

 
Quote
Originally posted by Karnak:
The Fw190 and Spitfire (it also matches the NACA peak) both hit full deflection with only 50lbs of stick force ant cetain speeds. At higher speeds the highere AH stickforce simply means their roll rates decline at a slower rate than they do in the 50lb NACA test.

The thing that is odd is that both the NACA Spitfire and NACA Fw190 roll faster at low speed than the AH Spitfire and AH Fw190.

Of course, all this is just guessing, without confirmation from HTC we really have no way of being sure what is going on.


And:

All we know is that they roll too fast if AH limits the stick force to 50lbs. The same is true of the Fw190 at high speed. Maybe 50lbs doesn't deflect the aerilons as much as the amount of force modeled in AH.

If AH is modeling 75lbs of stick force then the aerilons would achieve higher deflection and thus the roll rate would be higher, up to the limits of the airframe. The Fw190's lightness on the stick might mean that 50lbs is able to achieve full aerilon deflection at some speeds, but then it declines faster than 75lbs of stick force.

See what I am getting at?


 
Quote
Originally posted by Widewing:
Take a look at the known control used for the NACA data. Stick force was limited to just 50 pounds. This will limit aileron deflection at higher speeds in some, if not all of the aircraft tested. Therefore, "real world" roll rates can be expected to vary from the NACA chart.

I hope that helps.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Robert

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 247
      • http://home.midsouth.rr.com/rwysairwar/
700y? 800y? 1000y? oooooooh yaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh
« Reply #32 on: August 03, 2001, 06:48:00 PM »
Lephturn


I posted 4 films months ago where i got kills at 950-1.0 with very few round shot (200 or less i think it was ).

RWY

Offline 715

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1835
700y? 800y? 1000y? oooooooh yaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh
« Reply #33 on: August 03, 2001, 07:36:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Yeager:
Let me say this to all of you who have never fired anything bigger than a soft drink straw:  If you have six .50 cal machine guns spread out across twenty feet and harmonized to converge at three hundred feet your cone of fire at nine hundred feet should be something on the order a sixty foot impact cone.

You be your own judge as to whether a single engined fighter fits nicely into a sixty foot diameter impact area     :eek:

Y

Let's get the math right  :) : the impact cone is 40 ft maximum diameter at 900 ft, not 60 ft.  At 300 ft, the convergence, the cone is 0 ft diameter.  It then has another 600 ft to go, or twice the 300 ft, so the cone spreads back out to twice the  starting diameter (2*20ft = 40ft) which is the wingspan of a P47D.

715

Offline R4M

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 662
700y? 800y? 1000y? oooooooh yaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh
« Reply #34 on: August 04, 2001, 06:41:00 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Lephturn:

Just a question RAM, but how do you know what range is reasonable for Jug pilots to have fired at?  More to the point, how did THEY know?  Right, they didn't ... they just estimated.  Since they didn't have laser range finders, they just got "real close" so they couldn't miss.  Just because they routinely fired a closer distances doesn't mean the guns are modelled wrong, they just had different circumstances.  Since they didn't know what the range was, they just got so close they couldn't miss.  We have more information than they had, we are better pilots and gunners, and we don't have other random factors screwing us up.

gunsights, Lepthurn. Knowing the wingspan of the enemy plane (wich was not hard because there were just 2 wingspans to remember  ;)), and with the gunsights one could measure the range with a reasonable degree of accuracy. In fact IIRC it was the standard way to do that until the telemetric radar was used in the day fighter jets of the last part of Korea.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
700y? 800y? 1000y? oooooooh yaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh
« Reply #35 on: August 04, 2001, 06:58:00 AM »
RAM is quite correct.

In the Battle of Britian the Spits and Hurries had a dial on the gunsight that the pilot would set to one of the available settings.

Me109
Me110
Stuka
He111

Or something like that list.  When the dial was turned, the circle in the reflector gunsight would expand or contract to a set position.  When the wingtips of the aircraft, Bf109 if the setting was Me109, touched the circle it meant the aircraft was in range and the pilot could commence firing.

Later in the war the gyroscopic gunsight was introduced and that would indicate where you had to aim in order to hit the target in a deflection shot.  In tests on Spitfire IXs it dramatically increased the kill rate.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Lephturn

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1200
      • http://lephturn.webhop.net
700y? 800y? 1000y? oooooooh yaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh
« Reply #36 on: August 04, 2001, 08:33:00 AM »
Oh, I'm quite aware of how they used gunsights in the fighters.  My point is that the gunsights were set to X range.  The pilots simply fired when the enemy "filled the sights".  Sure they could "estimate" based on the gunsight, but they didn't have the luxuries we have.  They didn't know "I fired at that guy at 800 yards".  It was either close to the the right range, or it was outside of it.  They couldn't "see what happens" at 900 yards like we can.  They didn't get the chance to practice shooting at long range and knowing exactly how far they were shooting like we do.  Nevermind the fact that they could only really estimate the range well when the enemy was in their gunsight.  The result is that they would never even attempt the shots we take in real life.  Even if they did take them, they didn't have the info and feedback we have to learn to shoot at that range.  The end result is that in AH we can connect with shots at longer ranges than they could in real life.  But that fact DOES NOT mean the guns are modelled wrong.

Offline R4M

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 662
700y? 800y? 1000y? oooooooh yaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh
« Reply #37 on: August 04, 2001, 09:20:00 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Lephturn:
Oh, I'm quite aware of how they used gunsights in the fighters.  My point is that the gunsights were set to X range.  The pilots simply fired when the enemy "filled the sights".  Sure they could "estimate" based on the gunsight, but they didn't have the luxuries we have.  They didn't know "I fired at that guy at 800 yards".  It was either close to the the right range, or it was outside of it.  They couldn't "see what happens" at 900 yards like we can.  They didn't get the chance to practice shooting at long range and knowing exactly how far they were shooting like we do.  Nevermind the fact that they could only really estimate the range well when the enemy was in their gunsight.  The result is that they would never even attempt the shots we take in real life.  Even if they did take them, they didn't have the info and feedback we have to learn to shoot at that range.  The end result is that in AH we can connect with shots at longer ranges than they could in real life.  But that fact DOES NOT mean the guns are modelled wrong.


I mostly agree and that is why I say that in an hypotetic HA with top realism settings, the rangefinder should be gone, or at least in a much less accurate way.

About the gun modelling, I just say what I think after seeing the effects of the long range hits in AH. Is just my opinion,sadly not backed up by any kind of proofs. but an opinion anyway  :)

Offline garrido

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 85
700y? 800y? 1000y? oooooooh yaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh
« Reply #38 on: August 04, 2001, 12:38:00 PM »
Hola de nuevo:
que alguien traduzca este post por favor.

Siempre, siempre hay que dar pruebas de lo que se dice, pero nadie las da en contra. que se le va a hacer.
piden una filmacion de impactos a mas de 700y que conlleven derribos, yo las pido de las de la WWII donde se vea que alguien es derribado a esas distancias.
Dicen que tenemos mas experiencia de vuelo que cualquier piloto de guerra real, pero por favor, no durariamos nada en un enfrentamiento contra un piloto real, ocurre que ellos no tenian iconos de identificacion ni de distancias, eviten el icono de distancia entre las 500y y 1.000y  ya vera como no tenemos esa punteria, quiten el medidor de municion disponible y ya veremos si se hace el s&p. No somos mejores, simplemente volamos en un juego que se hace llamar smulador, pero que no lo es. modelen el daņo motor y el cansancio fisico del piloto y veremos a esos N1K's y Spit's no pudiendo hacer esos virajes tan seguidos.
Y si mi dicen que todos los aviones estan con mas roll rate del real me estan dando la razon, AH esta mal modelado. Si impactar a 1000y con hispano y con un solo ping se pierde el timom y dando 5 a 250y a un N1K no se le hacen daņos aparentes (pues sigue maniobrando igual) significa que el GM esta bien yo no me lo creo. Si para acertar a 100oy con hispano supone desviar menos el morro que para con un MG151 dar a 400y, perdone pero no me creo que el GM este bien.
Si voy detras de un Spit a 450 mph y el a 350 mph, hace un loop y mientras yo asciendo a 10 grados sobre la horizontal el es capaz de alcanzarme y despues dice que el Spit no esta overmodelled no estamos hablando del mismo juego.
Estoy convencido de que todos en AH han sido derribados por hispanos a distancias de mas de 700y, 800y e incluso 1000y pero me da la impresion que les da miedo decirlo por si son el blaco de criticas.
Estoy convencido que aqui, en AH, casi todos hemos visto maniobras imposibles sin perdida de E del Spit, no solo de N1K, pero nadie lo dice, a que tienen miedo? no lo se.
Me presentas un grafico, yo postee hace tiempo (y algun otro piloto tambien) un grafico que no tenia nada que ver con ese. curiosamente en el aqui presentado el 190 tiene un roll rate superior, en el que postee yo ( o di el enlace, no recuerdo) el 190 tenia un roll rate muy inferior. cual es el real?
Solo HTC lo sabe.
Quiere pruebas? las voy a dar, fimare un H2H desde los dos aviones, con hispano y 151, el lag influira, pero no tanto.
De todas maneras aqui se dice que se han posteado videos ya, y que se han visto matanzas a esas distancias. que ocurre? no vale la palabra de esos pilotos.
eliminen los iconos de distan cia entre las 500 y 1000y.
modelen el daņo motor.
modelen la fatiga del piloto.
modelen correctamente todos los aviones, y puede que asi, AH no pierda pilotos dia a dia como esta ocurriendo.

Un saludo

SUPONGO

Offline Baddawg

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 78
      • http://www.dogfighter.com
700y? 800y? 1000y? oooooooh yaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh
« Reply #39 on: August 04, 2001, 01:08:00 PM »
Any of you guys seen the ...Brass (i think it was made of) plate with cut-outs of an enemy plane at 3 different distances  and when you held up the plate to look through the cutout, the planes profile would fill the appropriate size giving a range indication.

I believe that many WWII pilots got quite proficient at range estimation.
 However ammo was a precious commonity and gambling with it would sure increase your chances of being out of ammo at a very inopportune moment.

 Also it was very easy to be classified LMF-
Lack of Moral Fiber.
Some pilots were unjustly accused of LMF if their plane had mechanical problems.

Taking low percentange long range shots ,and running out of ammo prematurely and RTBing could also lead to a similar accusation.

There are so many factors that are different from the comfort of our computer station  to the freezing adrenaline fear filled cockpit of a  fighter  screaming  and  groaning at 20,000 + feet.

While I am sure  real life guns could do the same things  done here in  (virtual land).
You must remember that there was military disipline involved. And most pilots followed their training and the experience of their flight leader. Very few  experimented or bucked the system, either from  fear of  failure within their immediate peer group,disiplinary action or god fearing sense of self preservation.

So many factors to compare aerial WWII gunnery in Real life to that in AH's simulated environment, that this will always be a subject for debate and controversy.
Im glad this thread has stayed civil  :)

Offline Lephturn

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1200
      • http://lephturn.webhop.net
700y? 800y? 1000y? oooooooh yaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh
« Reply #40 on: August 06, 2001, 09:50:00 AM »
Just FYI, have a look at this thread:
 http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=010916

Skip all the early stuff and find Pyro's post about 2/3rds of the way down.  Good info there.  :)

Offline Jekyll

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 89
      • http://www.bigpond.net.au/phoenix
700y? 800y? 1000y? oooooooh yaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh
« Reply #41 on: August 07, 2001, 02:35:00 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Lephturn:
The result is that they would never even attempt the shots we take in real life.  Even if they did take them, they didn't have the info and feedback we have to learn to shoot at that range.  The end result is that in AH we can connect with shots at longer ranges than they could in real life.  But that fact DOES NOT mean the guns are modelled wrong.

EXACTLY what I've been saying (and crucified for) for the last two years Lephturn!

And NOW you open your mouth?????

Would have been nice to have had your support 6 months ago ... sheesh!

Offline Lephturn

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1200
      • http://lephturn.webhop.net
700y? 800y? 1000y? oooooooh yaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh
« Reply #42 on: August 07, 2001, 07:51:00 AM »
Well, I don't always jump into these discussions.  Especially when if somebody has already expressed a similar viewpoint.  I tend to pop in when I think folks are missing some information.

I may not have always been vocal about it, but I've always held that HTC's gunnery models are correct.  The main reason we see a difference is that we are far more experienced and in a different situation than the real pilots were.  Icons with rangefinders play a part as well.  However, folks tend to blame "then gunnery model" when in my experience that part is right on the money.

Next time you want me to back you up, send me a note.  :D