And what are the ranges of those planes being hit in the 3~4 films posted here? Either WW2 era film makers had some very clean digital zoom&blow-up resizing technology, or the ranges are pretty damn close. Close enough to confirm hits visually.
Anyone have a 700yard+ MG or cannon hit guncam for comparison?
(Does such a film exist at all?)
(...or, is this also one of those 'deceptions' where all guncam films are nothing but collections of most spectacular close shots, and the true majority of shots taken is a lot further?)
...
Further, I keep seeing ppl relate Aces High to IL2. If IL2 is such a superiour game then why are you Master-Debating the lack of similar features in AH? Could it be the _gameplay_ which is HTC's actual product? I would think so, otherwise I would go back to MSCFS, or some other such cold lonesome, single to 8 person AI-Driven realms that is nothing like a virtual world.
It really is baffling when at some point of the argument people are all enthusiastic about how realistic and carefully AH is modelled, and then, suddenly they jump to 'it's a game. Gameplay is more important' defense
. If "gameplay" is all so important, then the "bullets disappear over 500m" feature would also be a feasible 'gameplay' option for future AH development, would it be not?
And last time I read this thread, nobody was saying "IL-2 is a better MMOG game than AH". To make it short, you're saying "If IL-2 is so good, then go play that". Not very relevant in this matter where everybody's discussig how a certain aspect might be protrayed, no?
...
It's a mysterious phenomenon that has baffled everyone .
Suave, if such a "mysterious phenomenon" doesn't exist, what prevented every fighter pilots from becoming crackshot aces in real life?
Then why did they suck in the first place when the weapon's so good? Turbulence and crosswinds, as said by other people in this posts, won't be any 'magical' major factor, right? - "Dispersion with only a 10 meter radius".... "10mph crosswind won't matter much..." etc etc.
What's the emphasis on 'gunnery' anyway when the weapons characteristic itself was so superb that hitting an object further than 5~6 football field lengths was so possible, probable and easy?
You're keep treating the factors outside of plain physics as something that never exists at all.
Gunnery experience, turbulent atmospheric conditions, the pilots' psychological state, his awareness in numbers of rounds left, official doctrine he was trained by, methods of confirming hits on various ranges, methods of calculating range itself.. etc etc.
Not all of them may be put into a single game.
But some of them may be.
It's not a 'magical phenomenon' - it's a factor that constitues the results of gunnery modelling just as much as physics. The difference is that they cannot be simply quantified in numeric style.
The choice would be either ignore them and treat them as they don't exist at all, or try to find a way. The former is what you're implying. The latter is what I am emphasizing.
