The Void between Machine guns and cannons.

[Batz]

umm in the second half of that pac clip thats not a steady stream of tracers and it matchesnothing in ah. All the visible rounds appear to be coming from 1 gun. Plus the quality of the film is poor with the contrast of the round against the black terrain it l make the round stand out.

This particular pilot could of had a personal preference as to how tracers were loaded. You certainly see other strikes from rounds with no tracer.

But even so their visible in enhanced by the quality of the clip and the slow fps of the film. Even so they are no where as visible as AH. Also both parts of that pac clip  show close range gunnery.

Look at the il2 pi I posted and you can see the "tracer" of the 50s they match up way better with the films you provided then AH does.

Again watch the 163 video.



Yes lw smoke trails were more visible then 50s, so were their hit sprites. LW mine rounds had a much bigger sprite then what ah has now as well. But long range gunnery isnt a problem with lw planes.

As kweassa says that pic may or may not show smoke. It could just be over exposure with the burning magnesium/potassium  leaving a trail on the film. You dont know any more then we do.

I just tested the tracer interval using the .dot target command and the tracer interval in 1 in 5 on every gun. So a jug firing 8 50s has 680 rounds of tracers (max ammo load of a d30 8*425 =3400/5=680).

Even in the clips you provide as evidence of ? (actually I dunno what you are trying to prove) certainly dont show every gun firing every 5 rounds as tracer. Even the tracer you do see arent as visible and look nothing like AH.

I am am not an advocate of no icons. I would prefer a type icon that fades in at range. You could still judge closure and id plane type.

I covered ammo counters 15 times.

Going to specific rounds from hybrids will "randomize" cannon rounds far more than most MG. The various "beltings" of cannon use rounds with enough of a difference in BC to create a noticeable difference in trajectory. This won't be true of say the .50BMG, as those various rounds are much closer in BC. So, relative to to cannon rounds, .50BMG beltings will be much flatter overall

Well yeah. The particular point about hybrid round in almost exclusively related to cannon. In particular the Hisso. But certainly the variations in the lw cannon belting should have an "effect"as well.

Well the type 99 issue is a curious one in that if the mk1 looses 40% of its lethality at 180 yrds then what about the mgff? its basically the same round. I never take the mgff on the a5 because for the most part the mgff is useless.

In another post Naudet mentions a couple of lw pilots who claim to have shot down planes at 1000yrds or so with 7 mm and mgff

In "JG26 Topguns of the LW", a wingman of A. Galland is mentioned. He killed 5 or 7 enemies while flying as Gallands wingman, all kills were high deflection shoots up to 1000 meters (~1100yrd)! And this with MG17 and MG FF, anyway to do that in AH?? NO!
Same goes for a one-handed 109 Pilot, who had to use longrange defletion shots to kill, cause he couldnt fly so well with one arm in Aircombat, he also regulary score beyond 500 meters (~560yrd).

I dont necessarily believe that but even if it was real it couldnt happen in ah. If at 180 yrds an mgff looses 40% of its lethality what happens at 1k?

I read another quote by a us p51 pilot that witnessed another p51 get shot down in a zoom climb by a 109 estimated at 800m (Fw. Mueller I believe was the lw pilot credted). I can post similiar Russian claims with shvaks.

I dont deny long range gunnery is possible but I dont think it was as easy as in the case in ah for the reason I listed. If none of those things I listed contribute to long range gunnery then why in a game with similiar "believable ballistics" is it not repeated?

The idea the Ah'rs are more skilled doesnt play either. Lots of guys flying il2 have much time in flight sims and in il2 as Ah'rs.

[Tony Williams]

Originally posted by Batz
Well yeah. The particular point about hybrid round in almost exclusively related to cannon. In particular the Hisso. But certainly the variations in the lw cannon belting should have an "effect"as well.

It was the Luftwaffe guns which had a marked ballistic difference depending on the ammo - the Hispano's HEI and SAPI were very similar.

Well the type 99 issue is a curious one in that if the mk1 looses 40% of its lethality at 180 yrds then what about the mgff? its basically the same round. I never take the mgff on the a5 because for the most part the mgff is useless.

The cannon shells may lose 40% of their velocity, but that is not the same as 40% of their lethality, which would only reduce gradually with distance (much less than for a KE round like the .50).

Tony Williams

[Toad]

Blurring trail? Jeez. There's photographic proof of a trail. There's guncam films out there that show similar.

You clearly have not idea what I've said about ranges and icons. Do a search, because you're arguing with yourself, not me.

And if you've paid attention in this thread, I've said a few times that it's fine with me if ammo counters are removed from planes that don't have them. I don't care a bit. However, if you think MA play will change much because of it, IMO you're severely deluding yourself. The vast majority of the MA clientele is not the "fly to live" contingent and even some of the "fly to live" will stay till the last bullet is gone. In short, ammo counters just aren't important in this game environment. IMO (and HT's too, I guess).

 
Blurry smoke only in the historically correct LW aircraft, of course. I wouldn't want that trash blocking my view.

Not a steady stream? LOL! It's almost an unbroken line of light. See what you want to see, or blame it on the film. I guess. Kinda like "all AH rounds are tracer, 'cuz I see what I want to see".
 
Yeah, we have a preference too... you can always turn 'em off. Guess you want to be able to load the other guys belt for him here too though...........

Yeah, you covered ammo counters, gave your opinion and I gave mine. You think yours is more correct, I think mine is more correct. Whoop de doo. I hope they do it and then we can all see what actual effect it has n the MA.

Tony's right about Hispano and LW cannon BC. If you guys get what you want, the LW rounds will suffer more than the Hispano from varying trajectory for two reasons. The LW rounds have greater differences in BC between types and they use what, 3 types instead of two? Also the LW beltings are more "mixed" so you'll get more shot to shot variance. Don't bother me a bit either way. The question apparently is whether or not it's worth the coding work/time for such a marginal game aspect that's of interest to only a small minority who will, in any event, complain about it as well after it's done.

[HoHun]

Hi Toad,

>Tony's right about Hispano and LW cannon BC. If you guys get what you want, the LW rounds will suffer more than the Hispano from varying trajectory for two reasons.

Actually, the effect of dispersion is larger than that of trajectory difference out to a fairly long range.

If you'd compare wing guns (typical Allied installations) and centreline guns (typical Luftwaffe installations), you'd probably find that the former's random dispersion is indeed larger than the latter's systematic trajectory difference out to extreme ranges (where the Luftwaffe shells would self-destruct anyway).

And for a perspective: Something I didn't take into account in my above discussion of long range fire is the effect of firing beyond harmonization range. The diverging streams of fire are worse than ballistically caused trajectory differences, too.

>The LW rounds have greater differences in BC between types and they use what, 3 types instead of two? Also the LW beltings are more "mixed" so you'll get more shot to shot variance.

The belting may have been mixed, but they were matched to mix. The differences in muzzle velocity are carefully selected to give the rounds a closely similar trajectory within the weapon's effective range. That's why the ballistically superior armour piercing round for example has a lower muzzle velocity than the inferior mine shell.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Vermillion]

I've spoken to Pyro before, and Toad is correct.  AH models one (1) tracer for every five (5) rounds.

Batz, for some reason, you have convinced yourself that IL2 is correct and AH is wrong.  And then are trying to use IL2 as "proof".  Thats kind of a circular arguement, because first you have to prove that IL2 is correct.

If IL2 was so correct, why was it changed in IL2FB and from what I've been told is much more "AH like" in gunnery?

The biggest issue in long range gunnery is ICONS. Take them away, and its a moot point.  But without ICONS its unrealistically hard and most people can't play successfully with todays computer limitations.

[Batz]

Toad re watch that pac you can count every tracer. Nothing like ah. How come on the site you linked or the pic you posted none of it resembles AH? I have plenty of guncom footage on my harddrive. Not 1 looks like AH. Go to the main page of the site you linked. The "Tipperary" collection has 50 strikes with no tracer.

Tony isnt the Hisso Sapi round heavier then the HE? Wouldnt over 1000 yards that impact it velocity?

I mentioned the type 99 mk 1 because apparently theres issues related to it in AH. Brady talked to pyro and I believe thats what he related back on this thread.

Verm what you talkining about? Il2 gunnery hasnt changed except for some tweaking of the dm. Read whats actually written. The comparison isnt made to say ah is wrong or Il2 right. The question is about long range gunnery  Toad says ballistics and player skill are the cause (atleast I think). I say that its the visual aids that allow it.

Read what I said about icons. I never suggested "no icons".

The comparison to Il2 is just to show that 2 games with similiar ballistics can have different results.  DM is a huge part but so is "How well you aim". Still the things I mentioned have a direct effect on "how well you aim".

I said exactly the same thing "Il2 ballistic are very much like ah. Dont believe me? Go read it for yourself.  The issue is range.

Also read what Brady said about his talk with pyro on the type 99 mk 1. Obviously AH has it "wrong" there. I remeber pre 1.04 folks touting the real fm in AH. The same guys touted the post 1.04 fm after the fix. Some guys say wbs is real etc. Ah is no more real then the rest. But Il2 and AH have similiar "believable" ballistics that make it easy to compare. Beyond that who knows which is "real".

[Kweassa]

Batz, for some reason, you have convinced yourself that IL2 is correct and AH is wrong. And then are trying to use IL2 as "proof". Thats kind of a circular arguement, because first you have to prove that IL2 is correct.

If IL2 was so correct, why was it changed in IL2FB and from what I've been told is much more "AH like" in gunnery?

 There sure are many things wrong with IL2/FB, just like any game. But still some points in that game are far superior to AH, and the "AH is still the most realistic of them all, and no other game comes close - we don't need to learn from anybody else, they need to learn from us. If anyone is different from us, they're wrong" type of pride is simply plain bullshi* now. That used to be true, but not anymore.

 We're not using IL-2 as proof. We're simply offering a comparison that seems to make AH fans(hey, I'm one of them. I still like AH better than IL2/FB) sour again and again.

 IL2/FB - they use the same ballistics data around, they don't neuter their rounds aritificially, they model every rounds, they model even the different trajectories in the round types - armour piercing, incendiary, high explosive and tracer. They model in wind and turbulence(which doesn't seem to bring out any strange or fishy results), flutter effect, different heat conditions and have a damage model that depicts almost every aspect of the engine - you can be hit in the oil line, radiator, supercharger, piston, air intake, get the magnetos busted and throttle control stuck.

 Unless the 1C crew are using ballistics data that is wildly different from what HTC is using(could be a possibility.. how many sets of wildly different ballistics data are there, anyway?), they have created something that has all the initial factors and ballistics data AH has, and yet offer a different gunnery situation.

 Using same ballistics, but with far more factors that would effect gunnery, and a more sophisticated DM, this game brings out a gunnery which pretty much matches the historical accounts as we know. Ofcourse, it is a little easier in IL-2/FB than real life too - people do get 'long range' shots in - but the whole definition of "long range" or "lucky shot", is different. Sometimes I manage to dig in a 400~500meter MK108 shot in against large targets like bombers. I can hit a plane out at about 200~250m with nose-armed guns(wing armed guns are far more difficult, and the difference between nose-armed weapons and wing-armed weapons are very much pronounced in IL2/FB).

 The changes from Il2 to FB is mostly about FM, and so is the latest 1.1b version of FB. The gunnery, is, and have always been much same.

 For some reason, Batz is convinced? Yes, so am I.

 Those are all reasonable, and pretty damn good reasons the way I see it. A gunnery that doesn't use any artificial neutering, uses icons, models ballistics as data, and yet, still 'realistic' - wouldn't that convince you?

[Toad]

Henning,

Would you happen to have the BC's on the various LW 20mm rounds? While I've been assured by some that they are readily available, I've yet to find them and the two folks I've talked to that modeled them in games said they had to back them in by solving the ballistic formula for that using muzzle vel, weight and trajectory.

Tony, do you have them? If so would you share?

Centerline cannon are primarily on the 109's as far as fighters go, correct?

Nothing like AH? Yer right... there is MORE light leading to the target in the film than in AH. AH does have more smoke though, which just clouds things up. That flick is like Luke's light saber pointing out the target.

I think what Pyro told Brady about the Type 99 is that it's pretty darn close at the short ranges but that velocity may have too big a role in the "longer" ranges. Whatever that is.

So as far as all the "factors", a few are valid, a couple are debatable and one or two are not even worth talking about.

Bank on this thouh. It's the way HT wants it and he's a real strong-minded fellow.

[GScholz]

Originally posted by Toad
Centerline cannon are primarily on the 109's as far as fighters go, correct?

109's, 110's, La5/7, Yak9's, Ki61, P38, Ta152 all have centerline mounted cannon(s).

P40B, Zekes, C202/205 have centerline mounted mg's, but no cannon.

Might have missed some.

[Toad]

Yeah, but he's talking about how they downloaded the LW rounds with the better BC to give them a closer trajectory to the ones with a worse BC.

I'd love to plot them all out and see how they compare and where trajectories diverge.

[GScholz]

109s, 110's then (mg151)

Ta152 (mk108)

190's if you consider wingroot monts as centerline. (mg151)

Your "project" sounds very interesting

[Toad]

Well 110 really wasn't much of a fighter except in this game.  

Dunno about 190; I'm not sure if the purists would rule that as a CL mount or not.

Yeah, I think it'd be interesting. But like I said, I've only ever heard of "backed in BC's", no original source data. And those I've heard of won't share.

[Kweassa]

Bank on this though. It's the way HT wants it and he's a real strong-minded fellow.

 But I also believe HT is firm and fair. I'm hoping sooner or later, HT will make an important decision.

 In terms of gameplay, many people worried when the IL-2 Demo came out, that when the gunnery was like that in the real game, everybody was going to be frustrated. Well, after it came out, frustration was there no doubt, but it was short. After seeing how the gunnery aspect worked out, people became very convinced and supportive of it.

 I'm very convinced the suggested changes, will be benevolent for AH in the ultimate sense. For one thing, at least people won't be whining about gun performances, or N1K2s or Spits anymore.

[HoHun]

Hi Toad,

>Would you happen to have the BC's on the various LW 20mm rounds?

Maybe it's possible to calculate the coefficients from the following trajectory diagrams?

http://www.x-plane.org/users/hohun/weapons/he_traj.jpg

http://www.x-plane.org/users/hohun/weapons/mine_traj.jpg

>Centerline cannon are primarily on the 109's as far as fighters go, correct?

Both with regard to convergence and with regard to dispersion, I'd include the Fw 190 wing root cannon in that category, too.

I've reached the conclusion that convergence/divergence is the ultimate range limiter.

300 yards was a commonly used convergence range on USAAF fighters. This equates to a 5 mil trajectory angle, which with a 6 mil dispersion leaves only very few strikes on the central vertical of the gunsight at long range. That shows very clearly that they had abandoned hope on killing anything beyond 600 yards.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Kweassa]

Hohun or Tony,

 What about the 'tracer smoke'? Did the US .50 cals leave smoke trails like LW or RAF cannons? If they did, how is it different from the LW/RAF cannons?

 What did the US think about tracers in general? What about the RAF or the LW? I'm very curious of this.