The Void between Machine guns and cannons.

[Toad]

So the "difference" in tracer depiction makes the AH ones a crutch but not the IL2 ones?

Talk about dancing around. Do you ever answer a question or just deny, deny, deny.

I didn't take anything out of context. I said I disagreed with you. You put forth a hypothesis:

the range at which the average ah'er can shoot and kill; is much further then in rl.

And then gave a laundry list of reason why you thought this might be.
 

As has been stated previously theres a number of reasons

I simply disagreed with you, in context.

I must toss in that I think the ammo counter thing is kind of a red herring given the situation in the game. Running out of ammo just isn't that big a deal.

I think most of us routinely stay in the fight until the guns go dry; at least I do. Would I do any different without counters? Nope.

Can't stand it when people question your pronouncements or what?

..and let me save ya from paging back.

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.

Can't stand it when people question your pronouncements or what?

[Shane]

Originally posted by Kweassa
We're talking about the 'frequency', not the 'possibility' here.
So the 1.2k kill might be actually a rarity. Then what about 500yards? Or maybe 600? You're an adept P-51 pilot - which ranges do you open up in your Mustang?
Up to which ranges you know you can shoot and kill the guy?

as a confirmed pony/spit/109/la7 dweeb....

anything under 400 yds is a sure bet....

for the pony... i say i have an outside chance upto 600 yds (for an ourright "kill) if the bogey is in a zoom/extend (stable not jinking) and i lead just right and spray <------- then i have a good chance.  if he's manuvering, not so good. i might see sprites, i might take off some minor piece, but it's not a "kill"  i can snipe out to i'd say 1.2, yes, but to no effect on anything unless the plane is real damaged or i get a lucky server pilot kill... 1.2, or even at 800 it's rare to get a "kill" even with .50's.

ditto for the hispanos, except it's even closer in than the .50's. i've hit stuff at 1k (most likely with the .50's, not the hispanos) but no "kill.

the 109 and la's have much shorter reach, altho i have hit stuff out to 1k with the lw mg's (in a fw when you can spray spray spray).  

furthest i've hit with the la7 is about 700 yds. no kill.

let's not overlook the net lag factor. i avow that things are more disparate than they used to be before the great masses arrived.  now you might see someone 1.2k on your 6 but he may be seeing and firing at 800-900 yds... this is at the edge of the spray .50's and get a lucky shot.

i do maintain that 800-1.2k kills are *not* common nor frequent. but do bear in mind there's a lot more people playing, so the luck factor is porportionately increased in these kinds of shots.

you guys are making a molehill out of the grand canyon on the .50/hispano issue.

and if you're concerned with the "spraying,"  well, why'd you let them get your 6?

[Batz]

umm niklas is talking about the mixed hisso hybrib. He mentioned that the ap he mix and that the ap has"better" ballistics then the he. I know that tony said that the Brits used He almost exclusively.

Heres his 1st post

And what do you think, does the AH HS shell slows down to 43% at 600m?? Imo not. Because i think they made a serious mistake. I know that thereīs a AP chart around. Imo HTC raised the curve simply to higher muzzle velocity. but the AP round is heavier and has better shape. So IMO (!!) and without any serious proof i assume that the HS shell in AH has the higher muzzle velocity of the HE shell compared to the AP shell (faster acceleration in the barrel, lighter), but NOT the faster decellaration in the air once it flies, and NOT the worse aerodynamics of the flat nose.

On the other hand, we all know that thereīs a german mine shell velocity chart out there. The mine shell has higher muzzle velocity than the HE shell, but once in air it slows down faster - less mass simply. Now what happens when we drop the curve down to the initial velocity of the HE shell? Lower muzzle velocity AND bad trajectory.

This is my theory, HTC may check it if iīm right, without their data i canīt check it whether iīm correct or not.

Then he folowed up with this

Read what i wrote. I once tested the deceleration of the Hispano shell, and it was comparable to the .50cal AP. So iīm sure that the Hispano shell has the high inital muzzle velocity of the HE shell (correct), but the low decelaration of the AP shell (incorrect) due to higher weight and better shape.
And this would mean that all Hispano fliers go out since 2 years with highly overmodelled weapons for long range shots...
The Hispano shell does definitly NOT slow down by 40% the first 600 yards in AH! Another hint...

So if if the brit hissos in ah benefit from the hybrid round then hes right i dunno or care. But nothing you posted comes any where near addressing that.

You went into BCs long before those quotes you provided above.

Il2 tracers again, you need to use your site in Il2 not in Ah. I never said Il2 was real or there were no gameplay concesions. I am not a realism Nazi. i just think that along with the other things I stated help contribute to long range gunery.

You specifically "targeted"  ammo counters. Anything that was brought up about ammo counters after that dealt with your focus on it.

Can't stand it when people question your pronouncements or what?

[Toad]

I could comment on the rest of your "factors", but I was hoping you'd explain a bit about the differences in these factors between IL2 and AH before I offered my opinion.

But it's pretty obvious you aren't in this for discussion, just pronouncement.

You went into BCs long before those quotes you provided above.

Really? Does it bother you not checking the facts before you pronounce? Guess not.

08-01-2003 02:30 PM  Brady: Ya it's crazy being able to nail planes at 1200 with 50cal's and Hispanos,

08-02-2003 06:03 AM  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

08-04-2003 07:47 AM   Kweassa: But people do start complaining in disbelief when they get hit like that out at 500~600 yards

08-04-2003 08:08 AM  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.

08-05-2003 04:23 PM  Toad:  For example, before anyone can even begin to talk ballistics, you have to know the ballistic coefficient of the projectile. (First mention by me of BC.)

[Batz]

None of those quotes has anything to do with ballistics. Almost every one of those you quoted said so in other posts after you brought it up.

Hell f4 said so even earlier

I could care less about ballistics. I care about the damage caused by each round.

on 08-04-2003 04:14 PM

What did any of your liitle charts do address anything in those quotes?

Nothing is what.

If you wanna learn about il2 go pic up a copy or try the demo.

I didnt make prononcements I offered my opinion in the context of this thread. Notice I never asked you for yours because I dont care. I just wondered why you were so hyped up on ballistics in a thread that wasnt about them. Nothing posted on that regard did anything to prove or disprove anything.

So I stick to my opinion that you were "hanging" around the thread waiting for a chance to demonstrate you brilliance.

[Toad]

Sure they do. Hitting at any range is dependent upon ballistics. But go ahead and pretend it isn't.

The charts show that if anything, range is undermodeled in AH. The rounds artificially terminate ~ 1.1 or 1.2

Nah, I'm not going to bother with IL2 until it's MMOG. Maybe then. Nice that you're so eager to make statements about it but not provide anything in the way of support of them.

Well, you're sure demonstrating your brilliance at pronouncements.

Even if you can't get a timeline right. BTW, nice reversal.

[Kweassa]

Hitting at any range is dependent upon ballistics. But go ahead and pretend they don't.

 Lord be merciful, Toad.

 You're ignoring every other factor besides the ballistics, again!

 Come to think of it, there's rarely any thing you've posted in this discussion which shows any amount of interest towards the so many factors Batz and I have mentioned, which directly influences the success rate of a shot connecting its target at ranges that are way over optimum.

 Everytime such facts are mentioned, it always digresses to some other subject... on how we should define gunnery, or how Batz should just go play IL2, or how he should read the posts right... and then, it returns to the point where we have to start all over again - 'long range hits are ballistics. If ballistics are right, everything else is also right'.

 Again, you accuse us of ignoring ballistics, which we say again and again not. Nobody is questioning the POSSIBILITY - we are questioning the REGULARITY of shots being connected in AHISTORICAL ranges where mostly, pulling the trigger should be considered a waste - namely, shots over 300~400 yards?

[MANDOBLE]

ballistics? Give me a riffle, put me over a moving truck and then tell me how good is that weapon, how improved is its sight, how long is its range and how flat is its trajectory. No matter, I'll be unable to hit anything with that while the truck is moving.

[Shane]

Originally posted by Kweassa
Lord be merciful, Toad.
 You're ignoring every other factor besides the ballistics, again!
Again, you accuse us of ignoring ballistics, which we say again and again not. Nobody is questioning the POSSIBILITY - we are questioning the REGULARITY of shots being connected in AHISTORICAL ranges where mostly, pulling the trigger should be considered a waste - namely, shots over 300~400 yards?

and you're conveniently forgetting that in 1 weeks time in AH there are more planes shot down than in ww2 in it's entirety.

you're also forgetting this isn't real, we have unlimited ability to become better shots with an unlimited amount of ammo to do so.

simply get good enough to shoot them down first and not give them your 6 at 600-1.2k where you risk dying from a so-called "gamey" aspect.

[Shane]

Originally posted by MANDOBLE
ballistics? Give me a riffle, put me over a moving truck and then tell me how good is that weapon, how improved is its sight, how long is its range and how flat is its trajectory. No matter, I'll be unable to hit anything with that while the truck is moving.

 
bzzzzzttt. sorry  here's a true to life experience of mine.

riding in the back of my dad's f150 on the farm he's working on - doing maybe 15mph.

have a good ole daisy bb gun, single pump spring with a faux scope (big plain tube).

spot a motion in a pasture we're passing, oh maybe a good 5-10 yds range. take quick "aim" and fire.... tell dad to stop stop stop!!  went to see what happened.

nailed a gopher right in the head (the bb didn't fully penetrate) the etxra velocity from the truck must've helped it do what it did from that range over a normal shot. (my brother and i had bb wars where you could actually see the bb coming and duck if you were quick - and raised a red welt if you weren't. amazed we didn't put any eyes out.)

i guess i'm just a better shot.  who was it that related how american farmboys who became pilots were better shots on average due to their experience with leading?

you a city slicker, eh, d00d?



was it a lucky shot?  you bet. repeatable?  well, if you had 1,000 trucks driving by every day with someone taking that shot, i'd imagine you'd see several a week.

[Toad]

Cod, be a realist Kweassa.

There's simply no denying that ballistics, from the barrel to the target, are the foundation of all gunnery.

The other factors are simply lesser factors, some of them nearly insignificantly small. Refer to the list posted upthread. Some of those are mere nits, they're not even lice.

Then there's the RL stuff that is considered unRL here, like tracer apparently. I don't even know how to categorize a concept like that.

And I do apologize for thinking everyone understood gunnery to be what gunnery is as it is defined. I should have known that gunnery includes leathality and damage modeling... even though it doesn't.  Well, I guess I should have known, but I'm not sure how I would have.

Your yardages are your perception. It's clear that rounds like the .50 travel 4-5 times that distance with sufficient energy to penetrate aircraft. It's also clear they "disappear" in the game long before that range. More unRL stuff.

There's things that could be done and probably should be done in various areas. Icons for instance. You can go search for my suggestions on that, I've surely posted them often enough.

But the bottom line is that someone is going to have to make a good case for changing something.. say icons.. and present it to HT. I personally have done this with icons and gotten nowhere. He has his reasons, we disagree and it's his game. So, I'm done with it and I accept it.

However, I wish you best of luck in your campaigns. As I did with Brady, I suggest you go to the source for your best chance of success. Repetitive threads usually don't get much done. Sometimes they do, but usually they don't.

YMMV.

[Toad]

Jeez, Shane.

Makes me want to stick Mandoble up in the back of a '79 Ford 250 with a 12 guage in one scabbard on the sissy bar and a .308 in the other scabbard and take him out on a Kansas coyote hunt.

It'd undoubtedly be an eye-opener for him.



Your story made me remember the time I killed a flying rooster phesant from the back of a moving truck with a .22 pistol. Yeah, he was going straight away at about 30 yards, but it was still fun.

And, lest you folks jump up shouting "once in a life time shot", I've got witnesses that saw me do it two more times. Once with a pistol and once with an iron sight .22 rifle. Different days though, even different years. Wasn't even shooting tracer.

Oh.. wait.. I couldn't have done that! Which means I've never killed a running coyote with a rifle from the back of a moving truck either.. except I've got witnesses to that too.....

Of course, aircraft surely bounce around in the sky like demented bucking broncos. Planes are much worse than a '79 F250 with no shocks running across the prairie.

[Kweassa]

and you're conveniently forgetting that in 1 weeks time in AH there are more planes shot down than in ww2 in it's entirety.

you're also forgetting this isn't real, we have unlimited ability to become better shots with an unlimited amount of ammo to do so.

simply get good enough to shoot them down first and not give them your 6 at 600-1.2k where you risk dying from a so-called "gamey" aspect.

 True, but shouldn't that apply for an explanation for why ahistorical range shots come out AFTER the proper inhibiting factors have been implemented? Not before.  

 Since those factors aren't present currently, we'll never know if those shots come out because we're crack-shots, or not, would we?

 Which could mean either;

a) the 'we're better shots' theory is total bullshi*, and people have been hitting at superior ranges only thanks to the fact that difficulties which should be present, is not there..

or

b) Indeed we're crack-shots. Even the average n00b who shoots out from 500~600yards and gets a kill with those Hizookas and 50cals, is in effect a better shot then even the best of WW2 pilots.

 .....

 That's why we'll have to, or at least, we'd like to find out. The experiences of IL2/FB suggests that b) is bullshi*. So let's see if that holds really true for AH.

 Like I said, if we're really crack-shots, then there is no reason for you to object the implementation of such factors other than ballistics - since as you claim, we're all better shots and it won't bother us anyway. Nothing's gonna change - what have you got to lose?

ps) or, are you objecting to it at all?

 The tone of your post seems to suggest so, but I don't really see a "no, I don't want those factors inside AH". Interestingly, that holds true for Toad's posts, too. No definitive "I want" or "I don't want" - only vague debates on trifle matters.

 Either way, you people need some explaining to do.

 If you also want those factors in AH, which would probably be a chance to prove your "crack-shot theory", then really, no reason for us to argue. We're looking at the same 'want'.

 If you don't want those factors in AH, well, that explains a lot by itself, if you know what I mean.

ps2) *snort!*

[Charon]

You qualify with an M2 .50 cal by hitting a BMP sized target (as I remember front facing) at 1000m in under 14 rounds. The weapon can easily reach out that far, and do it accurately, from an open "hand stabilized" mount. Vibration isn't an issue, velocity and bullet drop isn't an issue, just look and see where the first short burst impacted and adjust the next one. Now, a plane has less stability in some ways (environmental factors), but it is more stable in others (rigidity), and features a nice optical sight

Maybe there were other factors, but the weapon is capable of 1000 yards easily, and accurately, in and of itself. That is why it soldiered on as the main weapon on the M-113 in armored recon roles into the 1980s, where you would be engaging light ARMORED vehicles at engagement ranges up to 1000 yards, though perhaps more in the 600 yard or so range in congested Europe. It was still up to that task, though perhaps less so by the 1980s.

As for tracers, you typically used the impact point more for adjustment, but they weren't really all that different ballisticly, not enough to notice any real-world difference. I do remember a full belt load of tracers that was fired off once for the lazer effect. Not a good idea for the barrel

IMO, the shorter engagement ranges in WW2 likely are due to:

1. Poor marksmanship, particularly deflection shooting. This has been admitted in a variety of sources, from a variety of airforces. Bong even took remedial shooting between tours while already a high scoring ace. Pilots like Hartmann seemed to prefer closer shooting primarily to do the most damage, particularly with a plane carrying 1 20mm and x2 lower velocity 13mm or 7.9 mm. Not really a weapons set to be doing a lot of 600 yard spraying. (As an aside, didn’t Hartmann claim to be an average shot in his book, but one of his comrades say he could hit farther when he needed to?).

2. I don't know how many WW2 pilots with life and death on the line would fly a wings level, smooth, non-maneuvering extension with a plane 600 yards behind them. These planes are the only ones I seem to hit with any regularity at distances 500 yards or greater (in a .50 or hispanio armed plane). How many people get any kind of deflection shot at that range? If I do even a few slow, non e-burning maneuvers I have no worry about being hit from a spraying F6F or P-51 etc. or Spitfire at those ranges, though the occasional ping you might get can be critical if it is a Hispanio.

3. Most convergence weapons were set at the approved, least common denominator, average pilot skill approved range, typically somewhere around 300 yards, give or take. What would happen in AH if an historical 400 yard max convergence limit was set for the planeset? I would have no problem with this, particularly since I end up flying the La7 a lot in the "fly to hopefully find a fight/run from the gangbang" arenas lately

Charon

[Kweassa]

May I add..

4. Most planes rarely had ammo counters, which would allow you to carefully keep track of amount of ammo left. If there wasn't any precise way to keep track of ammo other than your memory cells, then the tenedency to pull triggers become very very conservative.

5. There were no tennis-ball sized hit sprites in real life - Granted, that timely sparks on surfaces of a plane out far(due to AP MG rounds striking), may have been more visible in real life than the sparks visible in IL-2(since human eyes are more sensitive to real light sparks, than simulated sparks), but they also disappear a lot faster, and are much smaller. Currently in AH, sparks remain visible for a relatively long time, confirming series of hits you can instantly identify and adjust your aim, according to it. In the case of cannons, nobody would try use cannons over such ranges anyway.

6. US .50s did not have smoke trail tracers. RAF/LW cannon shells leave a pretty fuzzy line behind. AH tracers, regardless of MGs and cannons, leave a clear and precise trail of a grey line.

7. The difficulties in aiming due to the difficulty of fine control input, might have been more present in real life  - the "aim wander" suggested and explained by Tony and Hohun.

8. AH dispersion of bullet trajectory, is not effected by air turbulence. I don't think there is turbulence at all, in AH.

9. Icon ranges, give out exact timing of fire. If icons are supposed to fill in the gap of inadequate detail levels, then the exact range is not a real necessity - closure or departure can be depicted in many different ways, as suggested by other icon systems. Even a simple "+" or "-" sign can do. The difficulty in judging distances is pronounced in icon settings without exact distances displayed, such as in some settings in IL2/FB or even the recent Target:Rabaul - you get an idea of closure, but no exact distance. Since I can't trust my own feelings are accurate, I would prefer to go within a range which is unmistakeably close, rather than try out my luck in a distance I'm not sure whether it is 200m or300.

 .. and many more.