The Void between Machine guns and cannons.

[F4UDOA]

Toad,

I can't speak for everyone but I would never want an unrealistic ballistics model. Ballistics is simplistic to calculate if you have the right data and I wouldn't want to bend the rules for the sake of gameplay.

But what happens when the bullet hits? Is it really possible for several 20mill shells to snap an F6F in half? Were wing failures that common?

I had a thread a while back asking why it was possible for a .30cal tail gun on the Ju-88 to take the wing off my F4U at 500yards consistantly with 30 rounds or less. And I could duplicate this consistantly in the DA.

Even if I could be hit at that range should that type of damage really occur? Or is it a subjective arguement. Have you ever seen tail gunner footage where a 109 or 190 lost a wing from turret mounted MG? Isn't it possible that the structure of these aircraft are more durable than in AH? I think Hooligans figures from WW2 show that the results in AH are less than probable if not a bit arcadish.

Some WW2 annecdotes are repeated so often they become almost cliche. The ones that stick in my head are these.

1. Don't turn with a Zero.

2. Alt./Speed = life

3. Check your 6

4. Don't shoot until you are close.

Which one of these things does not apply in AH?

[Toad]

So we all agree that artificially screwing with the ballistic computations and projectile tracking is a bad thing?

Good, my point exactly. (BTW, as HT has pointed out, numerous times, dispersion increases your chance of a hit. Don't bother to argue with me, just call him. I'm sure he'll enjoy discussing that old chestnut one more time! Tracers? There have been many comments here on how well AH tracer depictions match WW2 gun cam films.)

Now, damage model. AH does not have detailed graphical damage modeling. We all know that. Some unknown amount of wing damage is represented by a piece of the wing missing in the graphical representation, yet the plane can still fly with a wing chunk missing.

AH does not appear to have a real detailed "damage map". This is harder to judged because it's not visual but we all know there's certain areas that do "better" damage than others, like shooting wingtips on bombers.

There are other anomalies, like F4U posted about the JU-88 guns, other bomber guns... bunches of stuff.

Clearly, these situations are less than optimal.

So, what to do? Well, haven't they said they're revising the DM for AH2? I'd say the thing to do right now is wait and see how it turns out.

[Toad]

Did Brady talk to Pyro about the difference in the leath between the Mk1 Mk2?

So what was the answer?

Or did Pyro swear him to secrecy?

Why didn't he just post it? Why the need for a private message. Obviously, he told you?

So, what the explanation?

[Batz]

Theres no secrecy. But I am not the one going around claiming secret handshakes and conspiracies.  If brady posts or not thats up to him. All I can offer if hearsay which may or may not be 100% accurate as we were discussing the AH scenario "Operation Iceberg". It was only in passing that he mentioned the type 99 mk 2 (niki) and type 99 mk1. It touched on lethality range calculations. Say a 50 cal has a max of 1.2k at 600 yrds the round looses 50% of its lethality.

The mk 1 looses 50% of its lethality at 200 yrds. I dont know the exact wording or even the exact numbers but it appeared as if it would be looked at. As I said it was in passing.

So we all agree that artificially screwing with the ballistic computations and projectile tracking is a bad thing?

Good, my point exactly.

The point was never about simple ballistics.  It would also appear that not everyone agrees with the above (mando, hazed etc..).

Read F4s first post again. Its about effect and reconciling what has been written about and seen in rl guncam footage with what happens in ah. You simply tried to redefine the topic to "prove a point" that wasnt even the "schwerepunkt" of the discussion.

F4 posted as much

HT,

I don't think or know weather the ballistics model has anything to do with the dramatic differance between MG and cannon hits.

The area where I go off the tracks is what happens when that shell hits.

For instance I know when you shoot at a building with Panzer fire it takes XX amount of hits to destroy it. My question or statement would be that it takes far few to many hits to destroy an Aircraft with a cannon in AH than I believe it would in real life.

I know you have mentioned the damage model will change graphically but will it change in damage effects from impact as well?

Thats the point. "Gunnery" isnt just ballistics. Read f4's last post and hohun's post and kweassa's post.

BTW, as HT has pointed out, numerous times, dispersion increases your chance of a hit.

An increased chance of single bullet strike doesnt mean an increased risk in death or severe damage. Theres always the lucky pk but theres a reason for convergence. If all it took was greater hit probrability then they would have made the guns fire in huge "fishing net" pattern to snag anything in front of the plane. Anyway I doudt that a well aimed gun has a lower hit probrability then blind spray and pray. I'll go to the range tomorrow and see. Just look at Hohuns post.

So, what to do?

Some discussions are just that, discussions. They dont really require anything. To guess what each poster wants and what their reason for posting is not something I care about.

It would have been easier for him to search the old posts on this. After all its the same 6 or 7 guys going back and forth.

[Toad]

Jeez, I'd expect him to post. After all the discussion about it, I'd think if he had the answer to the question he'd share.

The "shouldn't be able to" aspect of these discussions does challenge HTC's ballistic modeling. My comments focus on the fact that the rounds clearly are capable of hitting at the longer ranges. All bullets land somewhere and ballistic trajectory and collision computations are something computers can do pretty well.

Seems to me what you're primarily saying then is that the discussion is about perceived problems with the damage model.

You define "gunnery" to suit your view of the discussion.

What F4U is talking about is damage. The Type 99 discussion centers around leathality/damage.

The point about dispersion is that it does increase the probability of a hit. Now, the damage that is done by a single hit is another discusion.

And ballistic performance will affect the probability of a hit as well, especially over the longer ranges. If you're a shooter, you intuitively realize that the "flatter shooting the better", and "the more energy, the better".

[mia389]

That sucks still the same gunery. That was the one thing I was hoping to see change. I hate getting killed at 1.2 away. For the Bnz,ers its good though I guess. This gunnery we have now feels gamey to me. specially the 50s

[Batz]

And ballistic performance will affect the probability of a hit as well, especially over the longer ranges. If you're a shooter, you intuitively realize that the "flatter shooting the better", and "the more energy, the better".

I just dont see where this was questioned.

I just reread the thread because maybe I missed something. F4 said he wasnt talking ballistics, Brady said he wasnt talking ballistic etc...

Gunnery is more then just ballistics and its connected to everything else. Over at target Rabaul theres a long thread about the sloppy fm.

Hmm seems there site is down fer me.

I was gonna quote what one guys says in response to the sloppy fm making gunnery more realistic. Basically the planes oscillate about. The gun site makes small circles even when you hold it level.

WBs used 80% lethality in their arenas, buff tough etc...... All that sucked.

No one wants that for AH.

The tracers, the icons, the limited dm etc all have impacts on how one percieves "gunnery".  They all have an impact on effective range.

As you noted the science of ballistics is probrably the easier part of the overall gunnery equation. I have no reason to doudt hts numbers.

[brady]

I just woke up, yawn so now I am posting:

    I was not going to sayanything since this is changing in AH2 and I dident want to stir more toejam up and Pyro was very nice in taking a chunk of his day to answer my questions on this topic, so I thought I would do them a favor and drop it and wait and see what comes in AH2.

 The Type 99MK I is valued at 92% the lethality as the Typ 99 MK II, howeaver it is being unduely effected by the time of flight reduction in lethality that is associated with all AH Aircraft gun's. So even at D180 it is suffering a 30 to 40% reduection in lethality when their realy should be only around an 8% reduction in lethality.

 Pyro argeas with Tony's statement:

"if the projectile is primarily relying on HE blast or incendiary effect, the velocity with which it strikes the target is almost immaterial. Provided that it hits with sufficient force to penetrate the skin and activate the fuze, the damage inflicted will remain constant. "

  So presently in AH the above statement is not the reality in AH, weapons with chemical engery componts are hitting less hard than they should at range.


  But this is being changed.


  TY Toad for presing me on calling Pyro, I normaly only call about CT related things since I am hesitant to waste their time fielding questions like this, but it was a good call and very informative for me personaly and I sincerly appricate Him taking time to answer my question's.

[GRUNHERZ]

Toad I think you are focusing your arguments and contention too narrowly only on simple mathematical ballastics calculations, especially in light of the fact that the very people you are supposeddly arguing against seem to agree with your basic conclusions about balistic. Basically I feel you are inexplicably ignoring other factors. F4UDOA did open the thread saying,

" I don't think or know weather the ballistics model has anything to do with the dramatic differance between MG and cannon hits.

The area where I go off the tracks is what happens when that shell hits."

So clearly the argument here is what happends after the shell impacts the aircraft.  Also note that he is comaring the .50 cal to the Hispano, and we all know they are both well suited to long range hits, a nice flat trajectory, and a high muzzle velocity - they are easy to hit with and get sustained hits.

Since those factors are largely similar in both guns they become irrelevant in any comparsion between the .50 cal and Hispano. So once again the original poster was not asking for ballistic calculations - that much is clear.

Now can you add something to this discussion about how bullets act upon hitting a varied aircraft structure? Do we even know how the HTC DM works? I donno?

Bust basically I honestly feel your focus is too narrow on balistics calculations especially asfter so mamny people plainly stated their aghreement on that one issue.

[hazed-]

Just like to point out that i in no way want guns 'nerfed' as toad put it

I dont want to be associated with some answers ive seen in here concerning what people believe , ie it being impossible to hit over 500 yards. I do not believe this at all.

I want bullets to be calculated to infinity if it can be done, I dont like even the present model AH uses which toad incidently is 'timed' from when they leave the muzzle. Meaning that 50 cals, being faster, cover more distance and thus have greater range than any other gun. 30mm for instance are removed at 900 yards from the game engine whereas 50 cals travel out to around 1.4k before they are removed.This is why those 20mm Hispanoes are so good.They have greater range than all other 20mm and it doesnt matter how high you aim with your slower LW 20mms, your bullet will never exceed the time limit.You feel this is fair ? I dont.why dont we just calculate all bullets out to a certain distance rather than a time?

What i do feel is a little excessive, is the loss of parts from aircraft in AH. If you have tried other games that have a greater variety of damageable parts and holes in the wing dont necessarily lose your whole wingtip you'll probably feel the same. I have always felt if AH damage was toned down slightly we would get the same 'feel' as some of the other games i think are more realsitic in their modeling of hits, or we'd see a few fights lasting a little longer. IL2 FB if you ask me has a much better 'feel' to its damage and im not trying to be funny just honest.

[MANDOBLE]

Ballistics is not an issue, but hits at long range should not show the hit sprites.

[frank3]

Originally posted by F4UDOA
Here is one of my favorites, the 37MM smart shell developed by Colonel Sanders of the Confederate Air force. Obviously it has been undermodeled because there is no way an aircraft could survive a strike from an object that heavy.

It's al about where you hit it, it could easily just go trough the plane without causing any serious damage.

when hitting a plane with 37mm in ah it always explodes

[Toad]

Quotes from this topic:

Brady: Ya it's crazy being able to nail planes at 1200 with 50cal's and Hispanos,

Kweassa: I am almost certain, that once such difficulties in long range shooting is represented in AH, the whinings about guns, will dissipate in its totality

Kweassa: But people do start complaining in disbelief when they get hit like that out at 500~600 yards

NIklas: Iīm still convinced that Hispona shells are overmoddeld for long range shots, and Mg-151 rounds probably undermodelled. But as long as i donīt know the exact velocity in AH of each shell at 100 and for example 1000 yards i canīt make an exact proof.

Mia389: I hate getting killed at 1.2 away. For the Bnz,ers its good though I guess. This gunnery we have now feels gamey to me.


*****

Those all sound pretty ballistic/trajectory related to me.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Batz
I
I was gonna quote what one guys says in response to the sloppy fm making gunnery more realistic. Basically the planes oscillate about. The gun site makes small circles even when you hold it level.

 

Is this supposed to be a good thing?

I've flown an awful lot of aircraft. I've flown quite a few WW2 aircraft. I even recently got a ride in the jump seat of a Mustang (no controls) where we hassled at T-6.

In not one, NONE, of these instances did I feel the aircraft was "sloppy" nor did the plane "oscillate about". None of them had any sort of "wandering nose" effect when flying straight and level. Well, at least not unless at or near stall speed.

To the contrary, the Mustang felt as crisp and and as sharp as a surgeon's scalpel when working over the T-6.

There are so many misconceptions out there that are believed so fervently.

[Toad]

Originally posted by brady
 TY Toad for presing me on calling Pyro, I normaly only call about CT related things since I am hesitant to waste their time fielding questions like this, but it was a good call and very informative for me personaly and I sincerly appricate Him taking time to answer my question's.

Well, it has always seemed to me that it's good to bring questions and issues before the community because there's a pretty large knowledge base here. Usually everybody learns something. Lots of time the questions or issues can be answered or resolved.

OTOH, I think it's a bad thing to whack dead horses repeatedly simply because no definitive or acceptable solution has been offered. It's bad for the game overall and it's bad for the player(s) that have those concerns. It breed unhappiness.

I don't always expect HT or Pyro to jump in a thread and explain (for a lot of legitimate reasons... like keeping their code/plans to themselves) to the full satisfaction of all participants.

So, when an unresolved issue keeps coming up with no "official" answer and the posts about it keep getting more and more bitter and/or acrimonius, I think it's just better to "call the source" and ask in a polite manner. If they're too busy, they'll tell you.

If they're not, they will usually explain their position. I haven't talked with many folks that actually called HTC and chatted that didn't come away feeling better about the game and the direction it's going to take.

Glad you called him, glad it's getting looked at.