Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Sox on June 26, 2001, 11:45:00 AM
-
Speed up the planes, When two planes going the opposite way, going 200 300 miles and hour or what not, you should only have a Second or two, to realy have a shot, And HTC realy neeeds to modle ground speed. I think over all the planes seem to move to slow when down low on the Deck.
-
Um... what exactly are you saying here?
What does "speed up the planes" actually refer to?
AKDejaVu
-
How do you fix something that's not broke.
-SW
-
"Hopefully by next week we'll start to test some new graphics enhancements in the beta beginning with some new stuff in how the terrain textures work. That adds a nice look and really gives you a sense of speed down low."
http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=000186 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=000186)
Ask and ye shall receive. :D
-
Thanks for pointing that out Mickey.. I missed that reference earlier.
I know that ever since WW2OL came out... I've felt that there was one aspect that I really wished HTC would... um... emulate. That is the way ground focus is used to enhance NOE velocity effects. I really hope they are doing something similar.
AKDejaVu
-
i think he means make the speed of the whole game faster.IMO this would kill AH completely.If you want to stop HOs dont accept the attack, avoid it.If you cant seem to avoid them you need to learn some new evasives, go to training and read some books on the subject
robert shaws book would help you out.
if you want HTC to add something to reduce them then im afraid the only thing i think would possibly help would be to either make any bullets that hit from a 12 oc position 50% effective OR if the HO shot is a kill shot make it a heavy damage shot so that its only possible to badly damage in a HO.
would everyone agree to it is the problem though.It would certainly discourage HOs if you knew you couldnt kill anyone in that way and at the very least it would mean they would have to follow up the attack with some ACM style attacks to finnish the job.
very much doubt this would be acceptable to all in the game though.
-
icons
its why headons are more effective than they would be otherwise
-
Dunno, half my headons were from misjudging enmy's heading. Take away range differential and you'll get me in twice as many, at least.
-
Originally posted by hazed-:
if you want HTC to add something to reduce them then im afraid the only thing i think would possibly help would be to either make any bullets that hit from a 12 oc position 50% effective OR if the HO shot is a kill shot make it a heavy damage shot so that its only possible to badly damage in a HO.
...It would certainly discourage HOs if you knew you couldnt kill anyone in that way
Quite the opposite!
This technique was used in some flight sims and is informally referred to as "forward deflector shields"
Knowing that they cannot be shot down from the forward aspect makes most of the players in inferior position turn towards the enemy.
ACM was dead and forgotten.
miko
-
What...
Program the game so HO’s are less affective give me a break. The only HO’s I get are the ones I want to take. They are easily avoided and faking the HO can set up a good position later.
If you have two objects traveling toward each other at high rate of speed, then you fire projectiles from the objects with an even greater velocity, the force on impact should be tremendous. Physics wise, a HO attack should be devastating.
Um, I think it is. So avoid it if you don’t want to be ripped to shreds by it. With all the calls for more realism toning down the physics of bullet on a HO isn’t a very good start.
Zippatuh
-
Accept the HO and make sure he goes down too!!! If he wants to dweeb ya, go ahead and let 'em! :D Seriously, the more you fly, the easier you'll find to spoil gun solutions and avoid the HO. Everyone once in awhile I'll misjudge it and get a ping or two on me. Nothing big unless it's a 20mm round and then I might lose a control surface. *shrugs* Sometimes I like to show the HO if I see a friendly behind the bandit. They tend to fixate on the HO merge, I evade and they get shot down by the friendly. :) I love baiting for squaddies!
-
There are two top-secret weapons for avoiding death by HO.
One is the stick.
The other is the rudder.
Does the phrase "maneuver out of plane" ring any bells?
Yeah, let's beg HTC for "realistic" Star Trek forward deflector shields. When a guy shoots and hit's them we can have a "Scotty" voice come over like the "Check Six" call. "Captain, she can't take much more!"
Give me a break.
Realize it ALWAYS takes 2 to HO. Move your fargin plane out of the way if you don't like it. If you're too slow to maneuver, shoot him in the face and pray. :D ...oh, yeah...stay faster next time, near your corner speed.
-
Mickey put it the right way, I didnt know it was maybe the graphics engine that made it look like you had more speed. It just seemes like planes over here go in slower motion, compared to Flyin in WW2online. Ether way I was just asking in a question format, The post maybe didnt come
across like that. No way am i tring to prove a fault in this game. I dont fly in real life and i dont pretend to know ANY THING about ACM. I just Play the game and have fun
I just felt like there was more speed in WWonline then in AH. One other thing the gunnery is a lot harder in there than it is in here. IT is alot harder to do a HO in there for damn sure. Thanks for the Replies guys :)
-
You'd also make the game less realistic by removing HOs in some sort of arbitrary manner.
If you read pilot accounts in WWII, situations where planes head at each other with guns blazing were not especially rare (and not just LW vs. Bombers. I'm talking fighter vs. fighter.)
And, in fact, there were certain aircraft matchups in terms of gunpower and maneuverability where HOs were sought out.
People need to drop thise attitude that even attempting any front-quarter shot is being horribly immoral.
I even hear people claim proudly that they "hold their fire" in HOs and what not, as if they were demonstrating how honorable they are. What a laugh.
It's treated as being on the same moral plane as ackstarring was back in WB, or car-bombing in here. It isn't. Because HOs happened in reality, ackstarring and car-bombing didn't.
Granted, I'm sure it happened far less in WWII than it does in AH, but the only way to simulate that would be to have people getting shot down in AH getting physically shocked with electrodes or something.
[ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: Torgo ]
-
1.Turn off tracers
2. Load a 190A8 to the hilt
3. Find a "sporting chap" who want's to use the TA as a DA who will fly HO guns cold to you to set up a nice lead turn gentleman dogfight.
4. Start firing at 1.2 on a fast closing HO
5. Fly through confetti bomb fragments.
6. Grab a beer.
The HO arguments make perk crybabies seem rational.
Go to the DA for Gods sake.
----------
[ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: Creamo ]
-
HOs dont just happen, you either make them happen, or let them happen.
Takes two to tango.
<S> Blue
[ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: Bluedog ]
-
Only dweebs can't avoid head-ons consistently.
Only dweebs take head-ons consistently.
And dweebs are the loudest whiners about head-ons.
<tisk tisk> dweebs never learn how to fly beyond quake.
Nexus
-
S!
The reason Headons are so lethal is that the accuracy of the AH weapons is way too high. Fix the dispersion and the whines about HO's would cease, as would the screams about C-Hogs.
-
Hang dodges two blazing high speed top-down B&Z passes.. but the sly and evil opposition refuses to try and slip in behind, declines the bait so tantilizingly close, and grabs back up to the stratosphere for another 'safe' B&Z swipe.... ACM 'scorecard' style in AH.
"C'mere, yah futzy dodgin alt monkey scorepotato mofo, I got somethin fer yah...."
Hang whips the pony around, lays on the trigger at d1.5, stokes the rockets button and drills in fer a frontal shot while rocket trails define the box the potato finds himself in.. *BOOM*
... take that, yah scurvy dipstick.. Muahahhahha! 'ol Faceful nails another one. Chit; someone get me a damn beer, this is fediddlein FUN!"
After all, flyin 'n dyin is part of the sim... the fun part is discovering all the neat ways to do it. :)
Just say YES to the HO's. :D
-
Originally posted by Buzzbait:
S!
The reason Headons are so lethal is that the accuracy of the AH weapons is way too high. Fix the dispersion and the whines about HO's would cease, as would the screams about C-Hogs.
S!
Hail!
Greetings!
Salutations!
Hot Dogs!
Peanuts!
Popcorn!
Crackerjacks!
...and oh, yes. I distinctly remember HT and Pyro explaining that dispersion is modeled in AH.
I assume, from your above statement, that you have some sort of proof that it is incorrect?
Please post it so that we may all peruse your hypotheis and proof thereof.
S!
Farewell!
Goodbye!
Good Luck!
Adios!
:rolleyes:
-
If you cant avoid a HO you suck and should stop playing.
-AKHog
-
For me, an HO is a rush....makes me shaky sometimes...that amount of "realism" is enough for me...the reason why I quote realism is simply because I have never been in an HO, never flown an actual warbird. so to me, dispertion, closure rate and all that jazz makes no difference to me. ;)
-
The reason that HO's are more effective than in real life, has nothing too do with dispersion or speed. Its the icons. In real life its very difficult to judge closure rate, and range, in a head on attack. But with icons its quite easy. So then it becomes an issue of marksmenship and a high speed game of chicken.
That said, it takes two to HO. If you can't figure out how to avoid an HO, and come out with a superior position, go schedule some time with a trainer and I bet that in a single evening you will have it down pat. Its quite easy to avoid HO's once you learn the technique.
Hangtime, LOL!! :D Believe it or not, but back in Warbirds I did just that. I was flying a heavy P-38L when a purp 190 decided he wanted a piece of me headon. I jettison'd my eggs, and was about to get rid of my rockets, when I figured "what the hell... I'll use them to scare him to death". So as we approached D1.8 I started to salvo the rockets two at a time towards him.
My second salvo hit him right behind the cockpit ! :D It was great watching him flutter down to earth with his entire rear fuselage and tail missing.
And there was much crying, moaning, and gnashing of teeth on channel 1 and on private. LOL!
-
Originally posted by Vermillion:
The reason that HO's are more effective than in real life, has nothing too do with dispersion or speed. Its the icons. In real life its very difficult to judge closure rate, and range, in a head on attack. But with icons its quite easy. So then it becomes an issue of marksmenship and a high speed game of chicken.
That said, it takes two to HO. If you can't figure out how to avoid an HO, and come out with a superior position, go schedule some time with a trainer and I bet that in a single evening you will have it down pat. Its quite easy to avoid HO's once you learn the technique.
Hangtime, LOL!! :D Believe it or not, but back in Warbirds I did just that. I was flying a heavy P-38L when a purp 190 decided he wanted a piece of me headon. I jettison'd my eggs, and was about to get rid of my rockets, when I figured "what the hell... I'll use them to scare him to death". So as we approached D1.8 I started to salvo the rockets two at a time towards him.
My second salvo hit him right behind the cockpit ! :D It was great watching him flutter down to earth with his entire rear fuselage and tail missing.
And there was much crying, moaning, and gnashing of teeth on channel 1 and on private. LOL!
LoL!
You Rocket Dweeb!!!! ;)
I never could hit anything A2A with rockets :(
<S!>
Hamish!
[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: Hamish ]
-
LOL, Vermillion...if you would've got that on tape, I'd like to have that...lol...You ever hear the end of that ?
-
S! Toad
Of course AH has dispersion modelled into the gunnery. The question is, how much?
All I know, is that all the first hand accounts I have read from pilots of WWII, reported 99% of kills as happening at way under the ranges which kills happen in AH. Read Hartmann, or accounts of Marseille's air to air fights, or any of a large number of U.S. and British Aces. And most of the kills were at small deflection angles. The exception would be a guy like Buzz Beurling, who could hit aircraft at 90 degree deflections. But even he set his convergence to 250 yrds. The lethality in this Sim is much more than historically we should believe.
-
!!
@!
#!
$!
%!
^!
&!
*!
(!
)!
_!
+!
=!
S!
Buzz, this discussion (about the gunnery) has been around since day one of Beta.
I'll bet if you search a little, you can find a few threads that will entertain you for hours while reading.
What you have just stated is what will be called "anecdotal" evidence if anyone bothers to get back into an old discussion.
Old pilot memoirs fall into that category.
That is, it's not likely to be considered legitimate proof of your position.
The gun range modeling, OTOH can be justified with existing empirical ballistic data.
So, wear yourself out if you like but this topic has been flogged.
Peanuts!
Popcorn!
Cracker Jacks!
Hail!
Farewell!
So long!
I'm outta here!
[ 06-28-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
S! Toad
You say their data is empirically based: On what? The perfect fluid enviroment with no wind gusts, no turbulence generated by aircraft, no vibration in the airframe generated by the guns firing? Methinks those ommissions are included in what the dispersion model here is based on. Which is why the hits are happening at long ranges.
A note about "Anecdotal evidence":
When the leading Ace of the War, says "Get up close, and when you think you are close enough, go in closer" (pardon my paraphrasing of Hartmann, I don't have his book handy) then you find it tough to understand what he is saying? When the discriptions of Han Joachim Marseille, the so-called 'Virtuoso of Fighter Pilots", is described as getting so close he almost collides with his targets, then you say this is irrelevant?
I think you better check where you put your slide rule, because it may be wedged up a certain orifice. ;)
-
Buzzbait, the lack of icons in the real world is why they would get in extremely close so they were sure they couldn't miss.
-SW
-
S!
Hail!
Greetings!
Salutations!
Hot Dogs!
Peanuts!
Popcorn!
Crackerjacks!
Buzz, empirical as in THIS:
http://internet.cybermesa.com/~jbm/ballistics/calculations.html (http://internet.cybermesa.com/~jbm/ballistics/calculations.html)
Proven equations that give you repeatable, RL-verifiable answers. They also allow for atmospherics.
As oppposed to "back in the big war" non-specifics.
I think you'll get far closer to the truth with the equations than the memoirs.
But hey, if you like guns that only shoot 200 yds and have very little leathality there's games out there like that.
Enjoy. :)
Peanuts!
Popcorn!
Cracker Jacks!
Hail!
Farewell!
So long!
-
Originally posted by Toad:
There are two top-secret weapons for avoiding death by HO.
One is the stick.
The other is the rudder.
I think you forgot high latency and packet loss. :rolleyes:
-
Do the 50% thing for HO's. After flying Air warrior for 5 years, where HO's are very rare, you will see people flying skills come more into play. If the HO does not work for the most part you will see many more engagements, where the Hi/low yo yo, immelman, hammerhead, etc will be a big player. It takes little skill to try to HO someone. Make the dogfight a match of wits and skill. The HO is Too big a player in the outcome, it only needs to be less effective.
ATC
-
S! Toad
"I think you'll get far closer to the truth with the equations than the memoirs."
Do you know how arrogant that sounds? Do you, the dweeb behind your blue screen pathetic representation of a fighter really think you know more about the reality of air to air combat than someone who was really there, who was Brave enough, Precise enough and Intelligent enough to excell?
This kind of reminds me of the Idiots in early '60's USAF who insisted dogfighting was a thing of the past, that combat would be a matter of missiles fired from beyond the horizon and that guns were unnessesary weight.
Too bad that Vietnam came along as a nasty wakeup call for all those pilots who had believed the magical words of the slide rule practicioners. Who found themselves in very sticky situations with so-called 'obsolete' Mig-17s on their butts.
Do you think all those WWII pilots are lying about the difficulty of gunnery at long ranges? That there is some kind of twisted conspiracy which crosses national boundaries and language barriers?
Yep, I bet you watch the X-Files too.
-
I question "All I know, is that all the first hand accounts I have read from pilots of WWII, reported 99% of kills as happening at way under the ranges which kills happen in AH."
Do you know what range 99% of all kills in AH happen at?
I know what range 99% of my kills happen at.. and I'm sure its also way under the range you think 99% of AH kills happen at.
I know what range I get kills at... and I know what range I get killed from. Just what range do you think that is?
I also get a chuckle out of people that make people out to be heroes after reading their memoirs. Seems for every memoir ever written, there were always people in the background saying "I guess it kinda happened like that". Embeleshment is seldomely left behind.
Now.... go out and fire a .50 calibre weapon. See how difficult it is to hit a 10' target with it from say 600 yards. Then try to imagine 6 of them firing 3600+ rounds per minute. That is what we can call real life experience. That way you don't have to come here and proclaim that you know more about gunnery because you read someone's memoirs.
AKDejaVu
-
Funny thing math. Math dictates buy this rifle because by the numbers its trajectory is flater its velocity faster and it packs alot of punch on impact if using as say... Nosler partition bullet.
Purchase gun... go out with old farmer relative with an old .303 both of ya shoot a deer.
Hey the math is right your deer is dead it has a hellova big hole in it but its dead nontheless.
Look over at the old farmer.. wow his deer is dead also ! The hole is not as big and when he guts it the inside aint a big pulpy mess like you got.
The Math is 100% correct The bullet travelled faster ,flater and packed more punch then its advisary.
But one thing math cant calculate is death.
Sure it can calculate energy on impact, but the old hunters axiom still rings timelessly true.... it aint the size of the bullet its the placement.
Both kill, one just makes more of a mess is all :).
-
Yah, Buzz, I'm sorry. You are ABSOLUTELY right.
I will help you in your new campaign to get HTC to do all programming from pilot memoirs.
Trajectory, Rate of Fire, Turn Rates, Rate of Climb, Corner Speed...
We'll just dig up a bunch of memoirs from pilots that flew each plane and use those.
After all, what good is arrogant old empirical data?
Especially when we have "total recall" completely unbiased memoirs?
I surrender to your inescapable logic that this would make the game "better".
:D
-
Remove icons, you'd see how close you would have to get to hit the target.
Icons assist us in longer range shots.
Do I think we should remove icons? Sure man, I also think that Mars is going to be impacted by a meteor tommorrow, thus sending it out of orbit and spinning so fast that a strong gravity field is created and sucks the Earth into it's surface where we all die... we will collide with Mars by 2002.
;)
-SW
-
Uhhmmm, I'm not real sure there Buzz, but I think Ole' Toad has more hours in more different type of aircraft than I have sox! (I wish my logbook read like his!)
Plus, he actually does the research and gets "Data" to back up his positions.
BTW, Buzz, what are the effective ranges of the .50 cal weapon of the Mustang, the 20mm Hispano of the Spit and the 20mm of the FW190?
Cobra
-
IMO making a global arena setting of tossing out HO's for fighters, as AW does, is for the birds. All that accomplishes is the removal of a necessity to learn more ACM and SA skills.
Also, not having to deal with HO's only makes the AH leaning curve shallower. HO's were a realistic threat in RL and a lack of HO's, such as in AW, does nothing for AH or any other sim at all other than make it easier to fly. Perhaps that is one reason AW should stick with HO's and other games aspiring to be more of a game->simulation should not.
Will we be seeing a request for the AW LCOS dive bombing sight (circa 1969) on fighter aircraft next? :(
How about glass cockpits ala Fighter Ace?
Westy
-
Instead of removing Icons, change the way the information of icons are represented. Keep the country, even the plane type. 2 mi is good for visual ID in the game. Get rid of "laser range finder" Visual range cues pretty much kick in under 1000yds on your monitor anyways. Replace the finder with a rate of closure, either numerically, or a bar of some sort. Everyone I've seen that wants to keep icons the same says we need the range number to determine if the target is coming to you or going away from you. Rate of closure gives that directly, without giving away range to target. Sounds like a good compromise to me.
-
*sigh* Again? The old worn, chipped dog-eared and by now truly stinky "That ain't the way i heard it wuz way back when..."
We ain't flying 'back then'. We ain't at 28k with a pair of frozen lumps fer feet, with 15% of the the electrical system futzed out, with a drop tank that won't release, a radio that refuses to xmit, a balky #3 cylinder and more worries tha ann landers...
We got it EASY... too easy.
Quit yer squeakin, and go fly yer nice safe computer game. :)
-
Originally posted by Hangtime:
*sigh* Again? The old worn, chipped dog-eared and by now truly stinky "That ain't the way i heard it wuz way back when..."
We ain't flying 'back then'. We ain't at 28k with a pair of frozen lumps fer feet, with 15% of the the electrical system futzed out, with a drop tank that won't release, a radio that refuses to xmit, a balky #3 cylinder and more worries tha ann landers...
We got it EASY... too easy.
Quit yer squeakin, and go fly yer nice safe computer game. :)
I put those frozen gel pack things on top of my rudder pedals and fly barefoot for that effect! I purposefully don't drop my tanks sometimes. I will do a dive bomb, and not release. I'll have "gun jams" too!!! I don't always use the radio either! I kill the engine at random times. :p
hehe, now, other than the ice gel packs, I think i've done all of those in game on accident before! Nothing like missing the radio key and starting to type and watching your plane do lots of fun stuff! ;)
-
Originally posted by Westy MOL:
IMO making a global arena setting of tossing out HO's for fighters, as AW does, is for the birds. All that accomplishes is the removal of a necessity to learn more ACM and SA skills.
Also, not having to deal with HO's only makes the AH leaning curve shallower. HO's were a realistic threat in RL and a lack of HO's, such as in AW, does nothing for AH or any other sim at all other than make it easier to fly. Perhaps that is one reason AW should stick with HO's and other games aspiring to be more of a game->simulation should not.
Westy
Good points Westy. I am still "spoiled" by some aspects of AW. I do not disagree with the Bomb site we use in Fighters in AH. It does require more skill for that than that "other" game. :)
ATC
-
S! Toad
Yours is the classical response of someone who doesn't really want to respond to the question posed. Instead of replying, they pretend to take the side of the person they are arguing with. They pretend to 'agree' to a fictionalized representation of what the other person's viewpoint was. Of course, their representation of what the other persons argument was is completely distorted, deliberately couched in absurd terms, and bears no resemblance to what they were actually saying.
I have never said throw out the 'hard' data. Of course you have to incorporate it all the details of trajectory, bullet drop, muzzle velocity etc. But when your model, based on the hard data, is in complete contradiction to what the historical record is, then it is wise to go back and re-examine your model, scientifically of course, so you can determine what may be wrong.
That is what I am saying.
-
S! Cobra
"Effective range"
Hmmmm.... Now there's an open ended question.
What exactly do you mean by that? Do you really understand what you are asking? I don't think so.
"Effective range" is a completely fluid concept. It varies, depending on a huge number of factors, some of which can include:
1) Is the target moving?
2) Is the targer moving towards you? Or away? Or at an angle? What type of angle?
3) What speed is the target moving at?
4) What angle is the projectile striking the object's surface?
5) What type of object is being struck? What type of armour protection does the target have? Is a sheet of 50mm armoured glass? Is it a sheet of 5mm Aluminum? Is it a 10mm sheet of hardened steel?
5) What type of round is being used? Is it Armour piercing? Armour piercing Inciendary? High Explosive?
If a finite set of parameters is set up, with all tests done to that standard, then it is theoretically possible to establish a reference point for comparing various types of weapons and ammunition loads. However, to use those results, and define them as the perfect answer to what is "Effective Range" is a fallacy.
For that type of data, I would refer you to the sites set up by Mr Tony Williams, or the books he has written.
http://www.delphi.com/n/main.asp?webtag=autogun&nav=messages (http://www.delphi.com/n/main.asp?webtag=autogun&nav=messages)
Other data may be found in the records of the Luftwaffe, RAF, USAAF and other combatants of the period.
For a look at the type of manuals issued to the pilots of the era go to:
http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/air_combat/RAFgun/ (http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/air_combat/RAFgun/)
You will note that nowhere in this manual are ranges over 600 yrds even listed.
-
Simple Fact Buzz:
This is at 15000 feet altitude, gunsite 3 feet above gun (a guess)on say a -51.
.50 BMG
Trajectory (Basic) Output
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Input Data
Muzzle Velocity: 2845.0 ft/sec
Ballistic Coefficient: 0.650
Drag Function: G1
Bullet Weight: 712 grains
Sight Height: 36.00 inches
Wind Cross Speed: 10 mph
LOS Angle: 0 degrees
Target Speed: 0 mph
Zero Range: 350 yards
Temperature: 5.5 °F
Barometric Pressure: 16.89 in Hg
Relative Humidity: 0.0 %
Altitude: 15000 feet
Air Density: 63 % of Sea Level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calculated Table
Elevation: 17.594 moa
Azimuth: 0.000 moa
Range/ Velocity/ Energy/ Drop
(yards) (ft/sec) (ft-lbs) (inches)
0 2845.0 12795.7 -36.0
100 2754.8 11996.9 -19.8
200 2666.5 11240.1 -8.2
300 2580.0 10523.2 -1.4
400 2495.4 9844.3 0.1
500 2412.6 9201.6 -4.0
600 2331.5 8593.6 -14.0
700 2252.2 8018.8 -30.5
800 2174.6 7475.6 -53.8
900 2098.5 6962.1 -84.4
1000 2023.7 6474.0 -123.0
1100 1950.2 6012.8 -170.0
1200 1878.4 5577.9 -226.2
1300 1808.2 5169.1 -292.2
1400 1739.9 4785.5 -368.9
1500 1673.3 4426.6 -457.1
1600 1608.7 4091.3 -557.7
1700 1546.0 3778.7 -671.7
1800 1485.3 3487.7 -800.3
1900 1427.1 3219.5 -944.7
2000 1371.2 2972.3 -1106.2
At your 600 yard limit a .50BMG sighted in to be "on" at 350 Yards has a drop of just 14 INCHES and hits with just over 4 tons of energy.
At 1000 yards, it has dropped 10 FEET and hits with over 3 tons of energy.
Simple ballisitic facts from an unbiased ballistic equation.
So where do you arbitrarily want to make the bullet "disappear" from the programming?
It's no problem for HTC to track this bullet through our airspace. It's no problem to see if this bullet, on this trajectory, intersects the airframe of an aircraft in our airspace. That stuff is what computers do.
It IS a problem to account for the fact that most players here have most likely fired hundreds of thousands of more rounds than just about any real WW2 pilot. We can just discount player experience and expertise right?
It's possible that every little thing that affects a bullet's flight path isn't modeled here. It's probable.
It is unquestionably true that the data required by a relatively sophisticated ballistic model are present. It's unquestionably true that Pyro did a lot of careful work on the ballistics model here.
So you want to arbitrarily introduce other factors? Factors you can't really define or quantify? Let's throw in some "vibration"! How much? What force?
No thanks. I prefer what can be shown to be true.
Like the fact that a .50 BMG round has more than enough energy to easily penetrate a plexiglas conopy, remove the top of a pilot's head and exit the other side of the canopy at 1000 yards.
There are great games that have arbitrarily shortened the range of the weapons. I don't play them.
-
Winning a gunnery argument with facts is akin to winning an argument with a woman.
Yah better apologise immediately.
<S!> Toad. Nice one. :)
-
S! Toad
I want to thank you for proving my point with your tables. As I said in my earlier posts, it is quite possible to find test figures for weapons which use 'ideals'. This is what you are providing. They are based on extrapolated calculations. In fact in these tests, bullets were not fired at 15,000 ft at a target with the hit points exactly noted. Nor was there any measuring device at this theoretical 15,000 foot target to determine the impact force of the round. All these calculations are based on averaged ground level tests and adjusted for height.
Let's just deal with a few particular pieces of data which you provide from your 'ideal' test:
>>>>>>>>
Input Data
Muzzle Velocity: 2845.0 ft/sec
What you are quoting here is the 'ideal'. In fact, Muzzle velocity will vary by round due the variations in the number of grains of explosive loaded in the cartridge as well as by the variations in the bore and rifling of the gun barrel. Manufacturing techniques in the WWII era were not nearly as precise s they are now and especially with high production items like ammunition, quality control was considerably limited. All of that would heavily affect the performance of a given round when compared with any other single round. NONE of them were consistent.
Ballistic Coefficient: 0.650
Again, an ideal. But I'll let this one go.
Drag Function: G1
Here's where the variations begin to pile up. Drag Function as portrayed here is based on an 'ideal' bullet shape. But in fact, every single bullet leaving even a single gun will have slightly different characteristics in terms of shape. These affect the flight of the round. But it doesn't stop there. There are many more issues related to drag. Specifically each bullet which leaves the muzzle of a weapon will have a variation in the spin which is put on it by its contact with the rifling. As a bullet makes its way down a rifle barrel, it is actually takes on fluid properties due to extreme heat and force. Each bullet then interacts with the rifling in much the same way a drop of water would react when squeezed from an eye dropper. In addition, as each bullet leaves the barrel, the spin created by the rifling is causing it to rotate in a slightly different fashion than any other single bullet. The rotation of each bullet is never perfectly centered on the direction of flight. Which means that the Drag Function varies as the bullet rotates, as it provides varying degrees of resistance to the wind. This obviously affects the accuracy of a round and its flight path.
Bullet Weight: 712 grains
Once again, an ideal. In fact each bullet is unique, variations can be as much as 5 grains. Which throws out the 'ideal' again. A bullet which weighs less than the ideal will perform in one way, one which weighs more will perform quite differently. This can considerably affect things like Bullet drop.
Sight Height: 36.00 inches
No problem with this.
Wind Cross Speed: 10 mph
Very interesting. So you are saying at 15,000 feet the wind blows at a steady 10mph at all times? I think not. Over a 200 yrd stretch of the atmosphere you are going to find an incredible variation in the speed AND DIRECTION of the wind. Yes, direction. Because the angle at which the wind blows is obviously a factor too. Wind currents do not operate in a steady stream of perfectly aligned particles. In fact studies show that wind activity is circular in motion, with vortexs rising and falling. Not to mention gusting, as the wind picks up and loses speed. Which is the norm and not the exception. To find wind acting at all like what is portrayed in this 'ideal' scenario, you would have to go up to the height of the Jet Stream. There speed and direction is relatively constant. Too bad the Jetstream is not what we are looking at here.
Additionally, this test does not take into consideration the wind forces generated by either the target, or the firing aircraft's airframes. Turbulence from the passage of an aircraft through the atmosphere is both violent and enduring. A bullet passing through such turbulence will have its flight path altered considerably. Which again affects accuracy.
LOS Angle: 0 degrees
Each of these proves my point. Since when do you have perfect LOS angles?
Target Speed: 0 mph
Yep, all those planes fly at 0 mph.
Zero Range: 350 yards
Not a bad range to consider, since it is closer to what the real engagement ranges were.
Temperature: 5.5 °F
Another 'Ideal'.
Barometric Pressure: 16.89 in Hg
Ditto
Relative Humidity: 0.0 %
Ditto
Altitude: 15000 feet
Extrapolated.
Air Density: 63 % of Sea Level
'Ideal'. Variations occur continuously in the atmosphere. Air density is not perfectly calculable.
All these figures you have provided just go to prove my point that using 'ideals' does not provide an accurate picture of what a real weapon will do.
Well you ask: "What's a game designer to do? He can only go from the 'ideals'. He can't factor in all the variations."
Right, he can't. He has to use as his starting point the 'ideal'. But after he arrives at that result, he then needs to take an additional step.
That would be to make a estimation of how much the variations in all the above factors, (plus many more which I could list ad infinitum) are affecting the overall accuracy of the round.
I think if the designers of AH did that, you would see much more realistic gunnery.
-
Well, Buzz, what Hangtime said, eh?
But hey, I'm bored.
So you are going to take the position that ballistics is not a well enough proven and established science? That they cannot provide equations that provide reliable data at altitude as well as sea level?
Man, I'd love to hear your other positions on scientific equations. So unless it has actually been tested and physically proven on the ground, it can't be relied upon? How DID we get to the moon, anyway? None of that way-out physics stuff is reliable, ya know.
As for minor variations in muzzle velocity, BC, G1, bullet weight, etc. I guess you'll tell me then that I can't pick up a retail box of .270 Winchester, sight it in at 100 yards and look at a published trajectory table showing me where every bullet will hit out to 400 yards right? Because every round is in some minor way a bit different, right?
Only problem is I've got a rifle that will group 1/2' at 100 yards with the 130gr Federals and I have a range that goes out to 500 yards. Guess what? The extrapolated trajectory table is right on the money. I've been shooting Federals in that gun for 15 years. Shoots the same year in year out.
What about the minor variations in ammo? They result in minor, unimportant variations. :D
Here's some more bad news. It does the same thing with Remington 130's. Can't be right! Variations, of course. Sorry. It works well with either.
Wind? Did it ever occur to you that any two aircraft within 2000 yards of each other are almost guaranteed to be operating in the same air mass? The wind (all atmospherics) acts on the shooting aircraft, bullet and target aircraft in the same manner?
LOS Angle, Target Speed? Gotta laugh. You didn't go to the website did you? Admit it. You can input any LOS Angle and Target Velocity you choose. Oh, those crazy scientist guys! However, you don't need to do that in an ACM game. All you need to do is figure the "straight from the gun" ballistic equation. LOS, Target Speed are immaterial. Because the bullet flies its path, the target flies it's path and the host computer figures out if the two intersect over the duration of the trajectory.
Temperature, Baro Pressure, Altitude, Relative Humidity, Air Density? Yes, I just checked the "standard day" box. Did you miss that too? But guess what? Those are all user defined variables. So, your ACM game program could...well, you get the idea, I'm sure.
Go take a look at Hooligan's page comparing different rounds with MOVING targets (using the same exact ballistics page I pointed you to. Variable Target speed... how clever.)
http://home.earthlink.net/~jayboyer/ballistics.htm (http://home.earthlink.net/~jayboyer/ballistics.htm)
You want to ignore proven ballistics equations and "fudge" them with variables you can neither define, quantify nor verify in order to match the particular "memoirs" you deem "reliable".
No thanks. Still not interested.
As I said, there's several games out there with ballistics "fudged" pretty much as you suggest. I'm suprised you are wasting your time on this one.
... Oh, no need to salute. I'm a civilian now. :D
[ 07-01-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
S! Toad
You are using Commercial ammo loads, manufactured in the present day, with tolerances and precision not likely to be found in produced for gov't 1940 era ammo.
Second point is that you are firing from a stationary position at a stationary target. Non of the variables in regards to moving aircraft apply.
-
By the way, they put a man on the moon, using equations? Yes partly, but those last 1000 metres were flown by the pilot. Human. You need that to deal with the variations.
-
How much for that magic gun Toad? After 36 years of sport and angry shooting i've yet to find one of them. Everytime? after 15years? and out to 500 yards? no matter what the wind conditions? BSBSBS . Oh and those non-important vaiables that buzz was discussing, thats what will determine whether you hit that target at 500yds or even 300 yards. Hell in your world Toad you can probably elevate your weapon 45 degrees and hit a tree bound running squirrel at 1.4 miles just because its listed on your expolated bs charts. Take that magic rifle out more than probably once every 15 years and fire it for real. I've been shooting for 36 years now both sport and in anger, its the other variables once mastered that will make the shot. By the way , try putting 10 rounds rapid though your rifle and then check that magic grouping with a hot barrel, just imagine 100 rounds or even 500 rounds through that magic gun in less than a min and then see if you're even hittin paper.
-
Buzz,
Use a search engine and check out some of the .50 BMG pages. Those guys are using surplus .50 BMG ammo in rifles and getting very decent groups. Yes, it's a rifle but nonetheless the ammo is performing adequately.
As to YOUR second point, you were the one highlighting minor differences in ammunition, like a grain in weight of the bullet. For testing ammunition, you isolate everything else you can, no? So that you are only observing changes wrought by ammunition?
My position is that for shooting at a target that is 45 feet long at 600+ yards, a grain or two of powder or a grain or two of bullet weight isn't going to make a noticeable difference.
You're simply trying to change your argument now.
Ever go ahead and actually visit the web page? Pretty nice User Defined variables, eh? How about Hooligan's page doing the comparison?
B52,
No the physical range itself is a 500 meter range. You can set targets every 100 meters. The gun is exceptionally accurate, always has been. The funny thing is that it's the "cheap" model of the Model 70. Has a real heavy barrel. BTW, I've had it 29 years now and it's not for sale. :) My high dollar guns usually shoot right around an inch or a bit less, after I tune them.
My point is that I sight it 3" high at 100 and it follows the trajectory tables. It does shoot into 1/2" at 100, 3 shot group, 1 minute spacing. And it does it with two types of commercially available ammo. I quit handloading for this gun. I simply couldn't do any better than the Federals or Remingtons. Buzz's point was that ballistic equations can't be relied on for accurate predictions of trajectory. You want to talk BS? :) THERE'S some BS.
You aren't the only one that's done extensive shooting, BTW.
Long ago in beta there was one fellow that told me that it was impossible to hit a running bull elk at 400+ yards because of all the "variables". He was real vehement and insulting in his posts also.
Would you like to make that statement too? ;)
And we don't need MOA groups from an MG anyway. When you're shooting at a JU-88, it's a bit larger than a square foot of paper.
JU-88
Wingspan: 20.1 m
Length: 14.4 m
Height: 4.8 m
Wing area: 54.5 sq. m
Neither one of you would deny that these MG rounds travel 2000 yards+ while still maintaining enough energy to do serious damage. The actual ballistics of the round are not in question.
Yet you want to fudge a game's ballistic program with undefinable, unquantifiable, unverifiable variables until they "SEEM" right to you.
Should we do that with the FM's too? Start fudging them till they "seem" right?
You guys want guns that shoot 200 yards? There's a game out there just waiting for you. Why torment yourselves? Be happy!
[ 07-01-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
S! Toad
Once again, you are trying to put words in my mouth, trying to present your interpretation of what my points are.
The facts are, whether you choose to accept it or not, there are MANY variables out there which affect gunnery accuracy which CAN be quantified, and which are not covered under standard controlled test situations.
If Simulation modeller chooses not to take them into account, then the Sim he produces will see results which are significantly better than could be expected under actual conditions.
If you are happy flying in a Sim which delivers gunnery based on 'ideal' situations, then fine. I prefer to aspire to something closer the reality of the WWII period.
-
The reason Headons are so lethal is that the accuracy of the AH weapons is way too high. Fix the dispersion and the whines about HO's would cease, as would the screams about C-Hogs.
I'll let you and Toad have at the stats and equations Buzzed. I'd just like to point out that the icons in AH are radar range finders, which increases accuracy 10fold. I don't see a work around the icon issue, so I don't argue about it. Monitor limits vs. the real thing, that problem.
The other thing is, guys in AH have "virtually" shot down thousands fighters in the game online, and practicing off line. That gives you quite abit of a advantage for success compared to say a real pilot in WWII on his 6th sortie toejamting in his pants dodging Zero's.
I think the gunnery/lethality is very, very close to reality, if not the damage a little to lite. I've seen a whole lot of aircraft damage in the last 15 years, and it never ceases to amaze me how much damage little things do to aircraft.
Cannon and MG's must have been a real son-of-a-squeak.
--
[ 07-01-2001: Message edited by: Creamo ]
-
Originally posted by Buzzbait:
Once again, you are trying to put words in my mouth, trying to present your interpretation of what my points are.
As if you didn't do the exact same thing. :)
Feel free to list, define, quantify and give us a verifiable equation for the things you think are missing in this ballistics/gunnery model. I look forward to it.
-
Well, start with vibration then.
You know... how much each different plane should have its guns vibrate; the different value for each plane between cowl mount, enging mount and inner-wing vs outer-wing mounts. Probably want to include the effect of varying airspeed over the wing for wing mounts too.
Just define, quantify and come up with an equation so HT can program it. It would be a start.
Oh, yeah... make sure your source data can be verified and that you get the same values when you repeat the experiment under the same conditions.
Like a good ballistics program does for trajectory.
;)
Oh, yeah.... <S>
[ 07-03-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]