Author Topic: Question for Tony Williams (Read 823 times)

Pei · « **Reply #30 on:** July 15, 2002, 09:07:53 PM »

HTC have said on a number of occasions that AH does not use hit-bubbles

e.g.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54067&highlight=hit+bubbles

whgates3 · « **Reply #31 on:** July 15, 2002, 10:22:52 PM »

elipsoids (assuming it is not one big sphere for a hit bubble) are a huge pain in the 'neck' [ ;-) he winks knowingly - nudge, nudge - say no more] - plane geometry is much easier. i'll bet the spit's wings are modeled as a series of polygons

Shiva · « **Reply #32 on:** July 15, 2002, 11:20:06 PM »

Quote

elipsoids (assuming it is not one big sphere for a hit bubble) are a huge pain in the 'neck' [ ;-) he winks knowingly - nudge, nudge - say no more] - plane geometry is much easier. i'll bet the spit's wings are modeled as a series of polygons

Polyhedrons, more likely. If you break an aircraft into a small number of subobjects that each have their own boundingbox -- i.e., the wings, horizontal stab, vertical stab, fuselage, any engine nacelles -- the intersection of the flight path of the projectile and a boundingbox is computationally cheap; only if the boundingbox collision is true is the collision checked against the actual shape.

nuchpatrick · « **Reply #33 on:** July 16, 2002, 07:48:59 AM »

Great footage!! My only question is how many a/c got taken out or damaged due to debris from parts coming off the plane they were shooting at??

You see in one flim that the pilot had to make a quick yank ont he stick to miss some debris coming at him..

Just wondering...

Vermillion · « **Reply #34 on:** July 16, 2002, 09:09:04 AM »

The term "hit bubble" comes from the original AW, and was the method used in AW up until its very end in RR, and only changed to the plane shape itself in FR in the last few years. I have no idea how the guys in EAW used it, since it was not a persistent universe multiplayer universe. But the term itself comes from AW. And as I said it was 360 degree sphere defined by the largest area of the plane, which was usually the wingspan. I can guarantee you that AH does not use that method.

Shiva, describes how I would guess that AH does its hit computations. Its computationally cheap, and can mimic the plane shape very well.

Just because IL2 and SDOE is harder does not make it correct.

They obviously followed the philosophy of "the average WWII pilot could only hit out to XXX yards, so we will add factors to gunnery to limit effectiveness out to XXX yards, no matter what the actual skill of the player is". AH followed the philosophy of "we know the physics variables of A, B, C, and D effect air to air gunnery, we model these to the best of our ability, and the gunnery goes from there".

Both methods have shortfalls, and weaknesses. Neither is absolutely correct. Take your pick of which you prefer, and stick with that game.

But just like with icons, just because "no icons" is harder, does not make it more accurately reflect air to air combat than "arena icons".

In either case, computers are trying to mimic a chaotic and dynamic system, with a simplistic set of assumptions.

But just because its harder, doesn't make it right.

Creamo · « **Reply #35 on:** July 16, 2002, 03:52:26 PM »

They obviously followed the philosophy of "the average WWII pilot could only hit out to XXX yards, so we will add factors to gunnery to limit effectiveness out to XXX yards, no matter what the actual skill of the player is

Really?

Please explain this in detail. The obvious eludes me.

Kweassa · « **Reply #36 on:** July 16, 2002, 04:15:11 PM »

It eludes me, too, and very strange since some people like funkedup claim that they can land spontaneous hits from same ranges as AH(and not in just shooting at a straight and level opponent, but in combat situations). How does "the average WWII pilot could only hit out to XXX yards, so we will add factors to gunnery to limit effectiveness out to XXX yards, no matter what the actual skill of the player is" apply to funked?

.....

.. besides, even if what you say is true, isn't there a possibility that those 'factors' are actually the more appropriate ones in depicting gunnery? If there is one set of gunnery factors which allows most people to comfortably land hits at 400~500 meters no matter the skill, and another set of factors which won't allow people to land hits at that range, for a game intended to depict WWII conditions my choice would obviously go to the latter one.

LLv34_Camouflage · « **Reply #37 on:** July 16, 2002, 05:26:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Vermillion
The term "hit bubble" comes from the original AW, and was the method used in AW up until its very end in RR, and only changed to the plane shape itself in FR in the last few years. I have no idea how the guys in EAW used it, since it was not a persistent universe multiplayer universe. But the term itself comes from AW. And as I said it was 360 degree sphere defined by the largest area of the plane, which was usually the wingspan. I can guarantee you that AH does not use that method.

The term "hit bubble" was misleading. Sorry.

Hit box is a better term. I attached a picture of what I meant.

Of course each sim has a hit box. The size of the hit box is what I'm worried about. In IL2 and SDOE, the hit boxes are very close to the size and shape of the actual polygons of the plane. This makes the gunnery less "generous".

Camo

Apar · « **Reply #38 on:** July 16, 2002, 08:42:35 PM »

Exactly, that is the way it was programmed in CFS. Planes were represented by set of boxes to tulips whether bullets hit the plane. Would like to know whether this also the case in AH. It explanes 'hit's like Snefens picture is showing.

Does anybody have figures on gun dispersion of guns used in WWII planes?? Would like to compare those with the ones in AH (.target ####). It seems to me that the dispersion in IL-2 is much bigger than in AH.
One thing that always strikes me when looking at films like the one posted by RAM, is that the dispersion is huge (looking at the tracers). It doesn't look like that in AH.

HoHun · « **Reply #39 on:** July 17, 2002, 03:20:40 PM »

Hi Apar,

>Does anybody have figures on gun dispersion of guns used in WWII planes??

Junkers instructions for harmonizing the MG151/20 cannon of the Ju 87D-5 stated that the weapon dispersion radius was 0.25% of the range.

That means that at 500 m, all of your hits should strike within a 2.5 m circle.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Vermillion · « **Reply #40 on:** July 17, 2002, 04:04:22 PM »

Quote

They obviously followed the philosophy of "the average WWII pilot could only hit out to XXX yards, so we will add factors to gunnery to limit effectiveness out to XXX yards, no matter what the actual skill of the player is

I'm going by the descriptions of IL2 gunnery that are in this thread and others I've read. Where you all explicitly state that its almost impossible to score hits unless your within 300 yards, and certainly within less than 500. And the proponents of this gunnery system use this as proof that its a better system, because of the descriptions of WWII gunnery they read are consistent with the game, regardless of the difference between real pilots and virtual pilots (but these same people ignore descriptions that contradict their point).

But one common method of doing this is to simply make the FE stop tracking the round after going a certain distance. Literally the bullets "disappear" after going XXX yards. But there are others as well.

LLv34_Camouflage · « **Reply #41 on:** July 17, 2002, 05:14:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Vermillion

I'm going by the descriptions of IL2 gunnery that are in this thread and others I've read. Where you all explicitly state that its almost impossible to score hits unless your within 300 yards, and certainly within less than 500. And the proponents of this gunnery system use this as proof that its a better system, because of the descriptions of WWII gunnery they read are consistent with the game, regardless of the difference between real pilots and virtual pilots (but these same people ignore descriptions that contradict their point).

I don't believe that there would be an "artificial" limit to gunnery in IL2 or SDOE. Like Hitech has said, "you can't argue with physics".

I believe that the ballistics and actual physics are modelled correctly in these three sims, AH, SDOE and IL2. Of course, there are differences in accuracy, but for a WW2 flight sim they are all adequate.

As I've said, in my opinion, the issue is with the size of the hit boxes, or maybe the size of the bullet (tennis ball theory). The end result is pretty much the same in either case. And for an online sim, its perfectly fine: its a gameplay issue.

I've never said its impossible to hit at long ranges in SDOE or IL2. I'm saying its a hell of a lot harder than in AH. Even gunnery at short ranges is a hell of a lot harder. I just made some experiments, flying behind a Pe2, trying to get near misses with the 7.9mms of the 109 G-2, keeping time compression at 1/4 for better accuracy.

Attached is an IL2 screenshot compilation showing a near miss from 60m range. Its a slight left turn, with maybe 10 degree deflection. I tried to keep the gunsight just left of the cockpit. As you can see from the tracer, the bullets passed right of the rudder, above the elevator. The right side machine gun bullet went into the cockpit, the left side mg bullet barely missed, as you can see. It would be nice to see if that can be done in AH as well, with the tracers on.

Quote

But one common method of doing this is to simply make the FE stop tracking the round after going a certain distance. Literally the bullets "disappear" after going XXX yards. But there are others as well. [/B]

In real life, the cannon rounds of MG151/20 self-detonated at around 750m to 1.5km range. WW2OL models this. The MG151/20 tracer rounds in IL2 fly well beyond 1km.

Lobbing 30mm shells at bombers up to 1000m is a common tactic in IL2. After some practise, it works fairly well from a direct 6 oclock approach at a bomber in level flight. But if the target is turning at all, there is virtually no chance of hitting it.

Camo

Pongo · « **Reply #42 on:** July 17, 2002, 05:22:18 PM »

What plane in WW2OL has an mg151/20?
maybe an MGFF..

Apar · « **Reply #43 on:** July 18, 2002, 05:46:09 AM »

Thx HoHun

P.S. Does anybody know what the range rings relate to on the target board, how much % is 1 range ring in relation to target distance?? (.target ####)??

Charge · « **Reply #44 on:** July 18, 2002, 06:33:35 AM »

You are right Pongo, there is no 151/20 in WW2OL but the grenade that both 151 and FF are using sure looks the same, only the casing is different. I guess that all 20mm minengeshoss had a selfdestruction mechanism.

-Charge+