Author Topic: Realism-Gameplay gunnery balance  (Read 2031 times)

Offline Griego

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 223
Realism-Gameplay gunnery balance
« Reply #30 on: January 15, 2003, 05:38:31 PM »
I like the  system in IL-2 even up close some times you cant tell if your hitting them. except when small pieces fall of.

Warbirds has this too, but Il-2 is better graphicly. Holes in plane part of plane structures exposed and so on.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2003, 05:42:41 PM by Griego »

Offline Wotan

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7201
Realism-Gameplay gunnery balance
« Reply #31 on: January 15, 2003, 06:40:02 PM »
toad looking at hit % wont tell you anything as new guys strafe buildings and the like.

I myself can get pics and films of kills with no dam at beyond 600.

I still have the one of Zigrat killing at d700 while he was in a yak 9t and I was pulling left and up.

Remember your haphazard use of the word "common" back in that old "Ho's are common and traditional thread" :) Why limit its meaning here :p

Hornet this topic just didnt pop up over night its been debated and talked about going way back.

I have flown in events where the concentration of aircraft in an area far exceeds the main and now where have I not seen d300 lag as you describe. I have scene individaul laggers but if d300 was normal then a guy a d1.2k my fe could really be d1.5k, or not really at my 12 or 6. If this was normally the game would be unpayable.

Anyway

YMMV

Offline ccvi

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
      • http://www.carl-eike-hofmeister.de/
Realism-Gameplay gunnery balance
« Reply #32 on: January 15, 2003, 06:56:09 PM »
If planes are flying at the same speed next to eachother there surely isn't a big difference in what they're seeing.

If one plane is faster than the other and approaching, maybe even accelerating, probably is at least some difference. Did you test this case? How?

I would test this way: plane 1 is approaching plane 2 at high speed and fires a single shot at d500. plane 2 notes at what distance it sees the shot fired at. Same for the other case, 1 plane pulling away. Shouldn't be the distance for the plane lagging behind be even larger than the plane in front sees?

Offline gatso

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1279
Realism-Gameplay gunnery balance
« Reply #33 on: January 15, 2003, 07:33:06 PM »
I think all the long range kills we get in AH are down to a few reasons but the biggie as far as I'm concerned is information. It is pretty much impossible to get the depth perception in a sim that you would get in RL, to make up for this we get the icons on aircraft that give us exact range information.

One fact that springs up in quite a few threads is that range was very often mis-estimated by pilots during RL combat and I assume that this would negativily affect their ability to hit a manouvering enemy target. The range icons we have leave us in no doubt as to how much we should be leading a target making gunnery at long distances a great deal easier.

After you've factored in some environmental conditions, (RL. G, temperature, turbulence, fear. etc), not modeled (please don't model fear HT, my life is hard enough already ;) ) and you end up with shots being able to hit at long range because lots of small things make shooting here a lot easier and of course the shear amount of practise we all get far exceeds what is availible to actual pilots.

I personally think it's fine the way it is. Artificially adding aspects to reduce the range at which kills are possible would be a negative step as has already been mentioned. Adding some RL things might be interesting but I'm sure should they be introduced one of 2 things would happen; 1. We'd learn to live with the new conditions and learn how to get long range kills under them. 2. We'd moan so much that it'd get turned off :D

Gatso

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
Realism-Gameplay gunnery balance
« Reply #34 on: January 15, 2003, 08:20:22 PM »
Slapshot, the empirical evidence of typical IL-2 multiplay environment shows us that people spray and pray when they know they can hit something, not because they are not sure whether they can hit something.

* If people aren't really confident about being able to hit something over 400, 500 yards they tend to not spray.

* If people cannot so easily confirm whether their shots landed or not, they tend to not spray.

* Also, when they know a few lucky shots won't bring down a plane, they tend to not spray.

 ....

* AH pilots know that they can hit something over 400 yards, even up to 600, and in some rare cases 800 yards and above.

* AH pilots can easily confirm their shots, and modify aim as needed, due to the generic hit sprites showing up in all ranges, and even through the cockpit.

* Furthermore, they know that if those few shots land, especially cannon rounds, it will knock out something due to the way damage is done in AH.

 When people know that there is a good chance to land hits against an extending enemy, and they can confirm and modifiy aim easily, and even a few shots might be able to bring them down, especially in the case of the Hispano or Ho-5 cannon, they start spraying.

 ....


 Some people have argued that "AH pilots are better skilled than their real-life counterparts". To some extent, that may be true. However, that argument, ironically, contradicts the other argument that "long range shots aren't common in AH either".

 This overall "commoness" is governed by pilot skill range, and not limited by environmental factors. This means given some time to practice gunnery, everyone can achieve long range shots if they wanted to. I've met some terrific pilots in MA, and got shot down many times. Not all of those instances were "I totally made a mistake, and they were all over me, saddling up behind at 300 yards", and some of the kills they landed on me were on 500, 600 yard ranges, when I thought I bought time to extend away and regroup - mildly jinking, extending away. I am sure that they are skilled in gunnery, and didn't spray. They KNEW they could hit me if they wished to do so.

 There is a great great deal of difference between "knowing there is a possibility of hitting something", and "being confident of hitting something"

 There were terrific shots and aimers in real life, too. What prevented even them from confidently firing over long distances was the environment surrounding them, not their skill. Thus, the very fact that "higher skill allows longer range of successful gunnery" means that it's not realistic. (Of course, this little revelation won't affect people who have openly admitted that AH is more of a game than a 'simulation')

 To put it in simple words, pilots who are confident of their skill shoot at 400, 500 yard ranges everday in the MA. They know they can damage, knock down, or at least land frequent hits on the target. Some of those 'infamous' N1K2 or Spitfire pilots are renowned for their 'sniping skills'.

 Also, experience has taught newbies and dweebs that spraying and praying is indeed a worthy try, if they are in a plane too slow to catch the enemy, or have four cannons and hundreds of 20mms to shoot with. This happens everyday, every hour, every minute in the MA, and to say that "long range shots aren't really frequent" is, as others have eloquently put,  "bull shi*".

 ......

 I'm not exactly picturing an ultra-realistic, hardcore, standard-military level "simulator". But, I do belive that there is some areas that AH can be improved and changed. As previously mentioned, the chances of hitting the enemy should be governed by the surrounding environment, not pilot skill.

 That brings us to another interesting view.

 AH pilots are not more skilled than real-life pilots. It's just that the lack of some environmental aspects have allowed pilots of certain skill level and above to reach hit percentages higher than real life standards.

 ...

 Not all of the environmental factors can be 'simulated', when we are comfortably in our homes, with our sticks and keyboards. But some of them can be simulated.

 I'm suggesting that HTC consider changes in the two key factors I have suggested above: hit sprites and damage modelling. The latter would be a long, painful process, but it would be much, very much appreciated.

 If AH pilots are really so better in gunnery than real life pilots, I don't see anyway this could harm the people already skilled in gunnery. They'll be able to achiveve kills in "the way they want" anyway. Thus, nothing will be changed for them.

ps) Or, maybe not? :)
« Last Edit: January 15, 2003, 08:25:32 PM by Kweassa »

Offline Hornet

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 469
Realism-Gameplay gunnery balance
« Reply #35 on: January 15, 2003, 10:45:31 PM »
Putting the lag testing aside, clearly some believe lag is not an issue, I still have my doubts both about the standards of the tests and the odd logic behind it that lag seems to affect everything in AH _but_ our effective gunnery ranges.

The root of the problem seems to be that some want AH to be a historical recreation of how these machines were fought and others want it to be a simulation of what these machines could actually do.

HTC's case is purely quantifiable numbers and AH calculating ballistics...while the argument for more realistic gunnery is based almost entirely on pilot anecdotes of "how it should be" and now recently on IL2. In my mind, HTC presents a more compelling case, particularly when you consider that computers are pretty well suited to crunching the ballistics stuff.

People may think hitting over 500 is arcadish..I think fudging the real numbers to artificially limit the equipment modeled in AH is more gamey.

To be fair, I think both sides should have to reserve judgement until HTC does their next pass on the damage model. I don't think the chaotic nature of damage plays to the computers strength and perhaps some of the *impacts* are simmed wrong...not the fact that impact was occuring at the given range. Apples and Oranges really. I'd rather have them both right than fudge one to simulate the other...which IL2 may have done to some degree.

I think AH players are always going to be above the historical curve. But I suspect with a 2nd pass on the damage model, and a simple change like removing the ammo counters that things would fall closer to the anecdotal expectations of the historical recreation argument.
Hornet

Offline Innominate

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2702
Realism-Gameplay gunnery balance
« Reply #36 on: January 15, 2003, 11:36:39 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Hornet
I think fudging the real numbers to artificially limit the equipment modeled in AH is more gamey.


Nobody wants to fudge the numbers.  Just fix the places where AH is gamey.  Glowing bullets instead of real tracers(i.e. exact same trajectory as the gun being used), and hit-sprites that are too bright at long ranges, which can be seen through the plane.

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Realism-Gameplay gunnery balance
« Reply #37 on: January 16, 2003, 12:15:47 AM »
The guns will do it.

All the rest of it, hit sprites and the like, is either gameplay or conjecture.

As somebody said, it isn't like HT doesn't know exactly how all that stuff works. He put it in there.

I'm guessing that's the way he wants it.

So, your arguments need to sway im.

Somebody, Pyro I think, once posted that a lot of WW2 pilots underestimated their range too.

But y'all have a nice little rerun of this stuff. Enjoy.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2003, 12:24:50 AM by Toad »
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline BUG_EAF322

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3153
      • http://bug322.startje.com
Realism-Gameplay gunnery balance
« Reply #38 on: January 16, 2003, 12:35:56 AM »
My gunnery suks already bad enough.

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Realism-Gameplay gunnery balance
« Reply #39 on: January 16, 2003, 12:39:24 AM »
Just had another thought.

Maybe you guys could get all icons off in the CT and maybe somehow HT could turn off or adjust hit sprites in there too.

Best of both worlds again. Everybody has a choice to get what they want.

Maybe that's a path.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline funkedup

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9466
      • http://www.raf303.org/
Re: Realism-Gameplay gunnery balance
« Reply #40 on: January 16, 2003, 01:39:43 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by CyranoAH
After reading this very interesting interview posted in the O'Club:

http://airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/golodnikov/index.htm

it becomes clear that most of the aces opened fire at extremely short distances compared to what we are used to in AH. The problem is that in RL one would not get hits and well... you know what happens here.

I know this has been discussed before, but here's an idea (dunno if someone already proposed it): why not only show impact flashes at distances of 300yds or less?

I mean, you can fire at whatever distance you want, but you won't know if you are indeed hitting your target if they are further away than 300yds.

I believe that would make people fire at shorter distances, hence making AH engagements more like the ones in RL.

Whatcha think?

Daniel


I'd like the flashes to get smaller as range increases, and to not be visible through the instrument panel.  Basically make it look something like Il-2.

Offline Booky

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 344
Realism-Gameplay gunnery balance
« Reply #41 on: January 16, 2003, 03:23:02 AM »
I open up at about 2500yds but get most of my kills around 400yds. Is this good or bad?:rolleyes:

Booky

Offline Xjazz

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2653
Realism-Gameplay gunnery balance
« Reply #42 on: January 16, 2003, 03:29:10 AM »
Unrealistic range & feedback? What could be solution?

1. Lets tune down hit sprits vs range & caliber.

Good

2. Lets remove just range info from icon under 1k range.

Better

3. Combination of 1. & 2.  

Best

Maybe in CT and/or Missoin Arena? HTC?

Finnish WW2 pilots want to shoot from very close ranges. Sometimes even at ~20m / ~22yard / ~65ft. It was better get real close than just close, because prop wash didnt disturb any more. FAF gunnery training teach to gain hits to the certain weak spots of the enemy plane, not just spraying & gain some general hits here and there.
Its Quality over quantity ie How to make 2 .50cals count like 8 .50cals :-))


BTW
Offline Gunnery pratice is fun... if you cant fly in online (moving). I attack droons from all possible angles with lo & hi speed. I try to gain hits with short & precise gunnery by using RAF 150yard ring gunsight for range measuring & lead estimating.

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
Realism-Gameplay gunnery balance
« Reply #43 on: January 16, 2003, 03:56:34 AM »
question to the audience of this thread :

Did someone been in the 6 of a prop plane at some 20 meter ? what is the impact of the "wake vortex turbulence" (turbulence de sillage in french)

Offline CyranoAH

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
Realism-Gameplay gunnery balance
« Reply #44 on: January 16, 2003, 04:14:09 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by straffo
question to the audience of this thread :

Did someone been in the 6 of a prop plane at some 20 meter ? what is the impact of the "wake vortex turbulence" (turbulence de sillage in french)


Salut Straffo,

I have been at that distance behind a prop plane but I did not experience significative turbulence. Of course it was a 160hp airplane with a light airframe, so I can't judge what would happen being behind a 8-ton airplane with a 1000hp engine :)

I think Frenchy can shed a little more light on this subject.

Daniel