Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Kweassa on January 29, 2005, 06:06:15 PM
-
The extremely sensitive "wobbliness" of 109s - it's gone..!
The super-sensitive wobbling in the roll axis when 109s approach near stall AoA.. its just disappeared. Its still much more sensitive than AH1, but still, the 109s are much more pleasant to fly with. I can do full rudder maneuvers again more easily, too.
I don't know if its just placebo, but storch in the CT forums stated that he feels it too.
Anybody else notice this? I haven't flown the C.205 or C.202 in v2.02, but these planes also had the 'sensitive wobble' - maybe its gone for them too??
Was there a small FM change we weren't notified of?? :confused:
-
I noticed this, too. Seems there might have been a slight FM change in the 109's.
-
The ME-109G-2's FM' has gone South (to put it polietly) as well.
I got into a fight with a P-40E and was all I could do to HANG IN THE SKY, even the slightest turn would cause a stall - both high and low speeds!
It used to be a nimble fighter - now it drives like a TUGBOAT! Hell the A-20 and the B-26 have better flight charactaristics than the 109G-2 has now.
HTC, you really need to look at this one close. Someone crossed it's FM with the B-24. :rolleyes:
P.S. The Luwtwaffe cannon shells still aren't worth a CRAP.
-
Also, the 110's seem to have gotten ever so SLIGHTLY less likely to snap-roll into a spin on you. They still do it, but I can seem to hold hard maneuvers a little longer before I get worried.
-
Jester, when was the last time you flew the 109s? I find your comments strange, because I felt exactly the opposite when I tried out the 109s in v2.02. :confused:
I'm a 109-freak and have been flying 109s for eight years, in all of the flight sim games I've played. I've never really liked any other plane in AH.
I've also written many detailed posts and threads discussing the wierd wobbly roll-destabilization 109s met in AH2 when its AoA reached near the limit.
I've always complained about how P-51s, F4Us.. and even P-47(!)s outturn 109s with ease, because the 109s were so incredibly unstable that they couldn't follow any of those flap wielding planes when the speed hit under 200mph. Also, whenever heavy rudders were used the roll axis was again destabilized, meaning that you couldn't force any overshoots in tight maneuvers.
I'm not trying to discredit or challenge you on this, but I just find it strange. :) This very issue interested me greatly, and I 've been pretty keenly monitoring how the 109s were doing. My conclusion is that v2.02 109s have improved a lot when compared to v2.01 or AH2 beta 109s...
-
Readme does not include any FM change. Are they changing FMs without notification?
-
Hmmmm.....
I've noticed the 109's seemed to behave better laletly as well.
Prior to this release they wallowed more at slower speeds an sometimes seemed to wallow at high speed as well.
Haven't tried the manuvers the 109's were known for yet as I'm still getting used to what I see that seems to be a FM adjustment done by HTC.
P38L's seem to handle better as well.
Noticed the first day in mindinao the 109 I was flying could do nearly 500 mph at 5k in a dive and was just starting to compress. Thinkin HT has some settings they can fiddle with in the arena though. Cause after an HT reset of the arena the compression speed seemed to go back the 450 425 area.
Just an IMHO thing here.
-
I've only flown the Yak-9U briefly but seems to be much more torque requiring much more rudder input.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
The extremely sensitive "wobbliness" of 109s - it's gone..!
The super-sensitive wobbling in the roll axis when 109s approach near stall AoA.. its just disappeared. Its still much more sensitive than AH1, but still, the 109s are much more pleasant to fly with. I can do full rudder maneuvers again more easily, too.
I don't know if its just placebo, but storch in the CT forums stated that he feels it too.
Anybody else notice this? I haven't flown the C.205 or C.202 in v2.02, but these planes also had the 'sensitive wobble' - maybe its gone for them too??
Was there a small FM change we weren't notified of?? :confused:
The FM for the LW is about what it was prior to patch 5 IMHO. It is still not what it needs to be but at least you can play on a slightly tilted playing field as opposed to a 60 degree grade in favor of the allieds as it had been since patch 5. The cannons are still way off. the MG151 should be about equal to the HS404. My feeling is that there is still an allied modelling advantage.
What I did notice is that the 110 is much too uber. It is doing things a 110 never should in the vertical and horizontal.
You would think it was an allied plane or something. :D
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Jester, when was the last time you flew the 109s?
Well Kweassa..., I put in 3 years in WARBIRDS flying with JG 51 MOLDERS and going on 4 years now with ACES HIGH in both JG 3 UDET & JG 54 GRUNHERZ. Even a short stint with CFS and IL-2 (JG 51 again). In the years since I started flying flight sims I would have to say I have put in WELL over 80% of that time in Luftwaffe aircraft and of that at least 75% of that was in various models of the ME-109.
I have also flown in four other Allied squads in combat AGAINST the 109 (Flying Hellcats, Seafires, Juggs, Mustangs, Warhawks & Marauders) so I know what it will do against certain Allied aircraft.
I think that pretty well qualifies me to at least say that "something" is different in the FM's of the aircraft, either positive or negative, from the last version.
Take up a 109F and the G-2 while there should be some differences due to extra weight on the G-2 it shouldn't be to the extent that there is now in FM's. It is like night and day.
And I have been carping about the undermodeling of LW cannon rounds in AH since before Storch climbed into his first trainer aircraft! ( :aok ) One point that REALLY needs addressed.
-
ttok the G2 for a ride after reading this post, and i must say i didnt noticed anything different.
still a great plane
-
Originally posted by Jester
I got into a fight with a P-40E and was all I could do to HANG IN THE SKY, even the slightest turn would cause a stall - both high and low speeds!
Heh heh.
Heh heh heh.
- oldman
-
In response to Jester.
No doubt you have more experience than I, however I spend alot of my generous amount of discreationary time playing. As you are aware the lion's share is in axis. minor changes are immediately noticable to me. Prior to v 2.02 I started flying with the 56th FG in the MA and am learning the ways of the Jug. The thing the struck me the most are the 400 mph flaps and the laser .50s.
If you fly the 109G2 without the gondies it is handling as it was prior to patch 5. With the gondies it is handling worse than during patch 6. I usually don't fly the gondies because I would rather have the speed and I find the single pop gun enough against fighters. If I want to go buff hunting then the 190 A8 or the Bf 110 G2 are the tools for the job. The Jug is great at buff killing also.
I would like to inquire of Pyro if he has had the chance to evaluate the data that Crumpp provided some time ago regarding the performances of the various 190s and their respective engines?
It is critical to the game (more so in the CT) that the modelling be faithful to all types. I've noticed many skilled axis players have left the game. That is a shame, perhaps by correcting these flaws many would return.
The CT is coming to life again. we have had some great fights and playable numbers due in no small part to the return of LW A/C to pre patch 5 performance levels.
It was recommended to me that I go and revisit Warbirds. It is reported that the CT equivalent there is seeing between 50 to 200 players and that the balance between the models is very close. I haven't verified this for myself presently but will do so in the coming week.
In a post by HT some months back he responded to a question of this nature by stating that the average length of player stay for an on-line game is 18 months (this is coming from a guy who has played since before people squatted to crap!). While this may be true of other types of games it seems to me that most of the players I know have been playing this type of game for years and years. So much so that at two years playing I think of myself as a noob. Also many of the players in this type of game are very interested in the history of WWII aircraft and are quite versed in the facts. Speaking for myself I will be playing MMOG WWII flight games as long as I am able to. I'm sure many others will as well. These are the players that should be catered to, this is the core of the business. You cannot favor either side of the simulated conflict. The aircraft should be modelled as faithfully as technology permits and the chips must land where the may.
1. Eliminate the silly flap auto retraction. Especially in the excellent Bf109 flap actuation system.
2. Model the aircraft to the mfgs specs. they weren't propagandizing. If you would analyze the data Crumpp generously provided for the 190 you would see how far off the 190 actually is. This data BTW is from the USAAC tests! Implement it before some else does.
3. Get the ballisitics right.
FWIW, these are pretty simply solutions. you will have a much better game in the long run. Try it you'll be glad you did. :D
-
In response to a change in 109's handling
I too notice something in the stall speed handling of 109's they dont feel as moosh as they used too with the constant wing wrangling to keep her from stalling..
at a 3 g turn at under 200 ias the floundering is almost all gone.. Granted if you push your aircraft it will stall but none of that 200mph 2.5 g turn and stalling out like the old version..
the F model does now indeed turn better (more stable) and the g10 can actually get out of its own way without violent stall...
thats what i noticed.. I may be able to fly my 109's again now that they are not substandard anymore....
Doctoryo
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Was there a small FM change we weren't notified of??
No FM changes. I was going to remodel the N1K2 for 2.02 but didn't have the time. That's still in the queue. I have 190 remodeling planned after the N1K2 gets redone.
Actually, there was one minor FM change I forgot to mention. The time it takes to deploy dive flaps in the P-38L was decreased.
-
Originally posted by Pyro
No FM changes.
The power of suggestion.
- oldman
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
The power of suggestion.
- oldman
:rofl Jedi mind tricks
-
I dont know, maybe Storch infected me with his conspiracy disease. I just cant help but wonder sometimes, if HT and Pyro and some of the others dont sit around reading all our whines on the BBS about how crappy this FM is or how much we hate the guns on that plane, and (just to play with us) make constant, minute changes in the FM or the lethality of guns and purposely dont say anything. Could happen you know.
-
Book an appointment, seriously i think you need one :)
-
I don't believe it's done purposely. writing code is probably tedious and mind numbing.
-
Interestingly, lots of P-38 drivers claim the L is now porked after the introduction of the G and J.
I have never felt any differences in any of the updates, but I thought maybe I was just not paying attention.
-
Originally posted by storch
I don't believe it's done purposely. writing code is probably tedious and mind numbing.
No no, really man, think about it......... ::looks around wildly and takes a deep drag off of........something::
A little VB script to make some sliders, a little coad to make the sliders adjust lethality and accuracy of guns, another one to adjust something about the FM of a plane (like moving the CoG or something oddball no one would think of)..............
::takes another drag, looking around in the air::
Low flyin plane? Somethin's buzzin around here. Heh.
Doobs? That you?
-
I have 190 remodeling planned after the N1K2 gets redone.
Pyro is the remodeling of the 190s including the D and F, or is it just the A models?
-
Was hoping the 152 would get a once-over as well.
-
I have 190 remodeling planned after the N1K2 gets redone.
I don't know what your plans are in terms of new aircraft. I wouldn't pressume to tell you what should be added. However, I will take the liberty of making a suggestion. When you begin to re-model the 190s would it be possible to look into adding an earlier FW, for instance the FW 190A-3?
Given that ToD may begin with a western European theme the addition of FW 190A-3 would help fill one of the gaps (early FW) in the plane set.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
I don't what your plans are in terms of new aircraft. I wouldn't pressume to tell you what should be added. However I will take the liberty of making a suggestion. When you begin to re-model the 190s would it be possible to look into adding an earlier FW, for instance the FW 190A-3?
Given that ToD may begin with a western European theme the addition of FW 190A-3 would help fill one of the gaps (early FW) in the plane set.
the entire inventory could use early war models from every country. That however could be the subject for just one more thread. :D
-
Last night I was flying the Hurri IIc and it is suffering from some of the stall tendancies I was previously experiencing in the LW/IJ rides. It behaved just like the A6M5 did. You could turn it, it would stall but you could recover. I also noticed that I seemed to be the only experiencing this. RedDog had no problem killing me numerous times in the Hurri against my 109G2.
Later in a 1 v 1 against 1Duke1 he was in a P38G when he entered into a low G high speed evasive he went into an uncontrollable spin right wing dipping first. Realizing immediately what he was experiencing I kicked rudder and reversed. Diving on him I was just able to get some BB pings into his hilariously out of control P38 to ensure a proper kill.
Pyro may not have intentionally changed the flight model but they are without a doubt changed.
I say leave it as it is for three months, lets see how many allied flyers will stay with the game. :D
-
yeah ... yeah (mops brow) ... they tweak a little this ... fiddle a little that ... (panting) ... watch the screams and protests for a few minutes ... (towels head) ... and then ... and then ... they fix it back LIKE IT NEVER HAPPENED!
never anger the cook ... or a programmer!
-
As in my earlier post, I'm wondering if there isn't something in the arena's settings that allows some FM changes? Or something, some settings, that affcets flight dynamics?
109G10 flew quite well, for a short time, the arena got reset by HTC and it's pretty much back to where it was before????
Or it seemed to anyway. Maybe it's just a wishful thinking kinda thing.
I caught a pony that dove out with the G10 I was in doin right at 525 mph at just under 5k. Arena reset and no way the next try. Maybe I miss read the speedo?
OH WELL back to the wobbles :(
-
As in my earlier post, I'm wondering if there isn't something in the arena's settings that allows some FM changes? Or something, some settings, that affcets flight dynamics?
There isn't any host settings regarding flight models except for stall limiter ranges. And we havn't changed those settings since 2.0 was released.
-
Originally posted by hitech
As in my earlier post, I'm wondering if there isn't something in the arena's settings that allows some FM changes? Or something, some settings, that affcets flight dynamics?
There isn't any host settings regarding flight models except for stall limiter ranges. And we havn't changed those settings since 2.0 was released. [/QUOT]
TY SIR :D
-
Originally posted by hitech
As in my earlier post, I'm wondering if there isn't something in the arena's settings that allows some FM changes? Or something, some settings, that affcets flight dynamics?
There isn't any host settings regarding flight models except for stall limiter ranges. And we havn't changed those settings since 2.0 was released.
Hitech,
That may indeed be the problem.
Since AH2 we have had really strange problems crop up in the arena from time to time and no one seems to have a clue what is causeing it even though all the settings are correct.
-
Originally posted by storch
3. Get the ballisitics right.
What do you feel is wrong with the ballistics of the MG-151? I did a search on "Storch" and "ballistics" but didn't come up with anything. I'm sorry if I'm asking you to repeat information.
I only ask, because this is one aspect that I'm really interested in.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
What do you feel is wrong with the ballistics of the MG-151? I did a search on "Storch" and "ballistics" but didn't come up with anything. I'm sorry if I'm asking you to repeat information.
I only ask, because this is one aspect that I'm really interested in.
-Sik
the mine round for LW cannon isn't even factored in. It derives it's destructive capability by whining and tiring the opposition....oops wait that's me, sorry. ahem it derives it's destructive capabilities from chemical energy as opposed to kinetic energy. It has the same damage potential at 400yards as it would coming out of the muzzle. I'm no eggspurt but Tony Williams is. google him. I'm just a pinhead who has far too much time on his hands.
-
Originally posted by storch
the mine round for LW cannon isn't even factored in. It derives it's destructive capability by whining and tiring the opposition....oops wait that's me, sorry. ahem it derives it's destructive capabilities from chemical energy as opposed to kinetic energy. It has the same damage potential at 400yards as it would coming out of the muzzle. I'm no eggspurt but Tony Williams is. google him. I'm just a pinhead who has far too much time on his hands.
I'm familiar with Mr. Williams' work. But, as far as I know, modeling the mine round wouldn't improve the ballistics of the MG151 by much. I believe (and this is according to Mr. Williams website, but I could be reading it wrong) the mine round is fired at faster MV, but is a lighter round. The increase in MV would be 80 M/S faster, but the round would wiegh 23 grams less. So, from my meager understanding, the improvement in ballistics would be slight at best.
What you're talking about is the actual destructive power of the round, which is a different creature entirely.
-Sik
-
And he is also incorrect about how we model destructive power.
We do model both explosive and kenetic energy of rounds.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by hitech
And he is also incorrect about how we model destructive power.
We do model both explosive and kenetic energy of rounds.
HiTech
I think that his concern is that all MG151 rounds are modeled at the same low % of HE content, whereas the Mine rounds had a much larger % of HE.
I have no idea how these were implemented in real life, or how they may or may not be implemented in AH2.
-Sik
-
We do model both explosive and kenetic energy of rounds.
Aren't the rounds hybrids, in that the HE content is distributed across the belt rather then individually modelled.
That would mean the greater effect of a Minengeschoß round is diluted and then distributed across the belt.
From previous test on the A6M2 and 109E4 both the MGFF and Type 99 MK I lose a good % of lethality beyond 240 yards. Clearly this is a result of lower impact velocity. In close they are reasonably 'lethal'.
I don't recall LW belting off hand but if every 5th round of the MGFF is a M'geschoß that's 24.
The Brits rated the M'geschoß as about equal to the Hispano HE. 24 hispano rounds in AH can cause a lot of damage.
If my pressumption is wrong and M'geschoß rounds are modelled then they shouldn't loss lethality with range.
Maybe we can put all the speculation to rest if we could get an answer. I don't recall seeing one in the past.
Here's a good website on LW ammunition:
http://www.munavia-21.org/indedoc/Lw-Ammos.htm
-
Originally posted by hitech
And he is also incorrect about how we model destructive power.
We do model both explosive and kenetic energy of rounds.
HiTech
If that were the case then the Axis and Allied cannon would have roughly the same destructive capability in the game which clearly they do not. :D
-
Originally posted by storch
If that were the case then the Axis and Allied cannon would have roughly the same destructive capability in the game which clearly they do not. :D
According to what Wotan posted, that's not the case. Not every round was a mine round.
-Sik
-
so....... a 67% efficiency in the Axis cannon when compared to Allied is then justifiable? 1 mine round penetrating stressed skin and exploding within the airframe would cause considerably more damage than a kinetic energy round ever could, n'est pas? Yet it does not. Not in AH anyway. :D You know what irrespective of what may have occured with the actual ballistics the game will be whatever HTC decides it will be. LW aircraft had ammo counters. Allied did not and resorted to placing 5 tracer rounds in each belt to notify the alert pilot that he was down to 300 rds per gun.
We have flaps on the 190 not being able to be deployed exactly at the speeds that the handbook said they MUST be deployed. The arguments back and forth are ad nauseum.
When someone (in oh Germany let's say) comes up with a more playable game and has faithful modelling for all countries represented in that venerable conflict then perhaps HTC will need to be concerned. Currently they don't have much credible competition so they may do as they deem fit.
Aside from all the grousing I do, I really enjoy the game, it just could stand some improvement on the modelling issue IMHO.
A player that hasn't been on line in AH for sometime advised me to check out WB again. It was reported that the CT arena there (or whatever it's called) is seeing between 50-200 players most nights and that the modelling is much closer but I have yet to play WB lately so I can't say for sure.
-
Originally posted by storch
so....... a 67% efficiency in the Axis cannon when compared to Allied is then justifiable?
I never said that, and we don't even know if that is what is happening. I was only pointing out that your post was incorrect according to what Wotan posted.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Aren't the rounds hybrids, in that the HE content is distributed across the belt rather then individually modelled.
That would mean the greater effect of a Minengeschoß round is diluted and then distributed across the belt.
So, if I'm reading this right, the M rounds would lose much of their HE content, but the regular HE rounds would gain? The agregate remains the same, but the distribution changes? That's interesting. While perhaps not optimal (I'm not sure which I would choose if it were an option), that would at least account for the M rounds in a manner.
-Sik
-
As far as I know, the ammunition in Aces High is modelled as an "average round" made by combining the damage potential of a bunch of rounds in a belt. For example, a typical LW belt was HE-HE-AP-AP-Mine (dunno if thats the actual order, or just the composition).
I crunched the numbers for that belting and Tony Williams "damage" for each round, they come out pretty comparable to my experience with AH.
The AP and HE rounds are so inferior to the Hispano rounds that the Mine round can't make up the difference.. so IIRC the MG151 is roughly 60% as effective as a Hispano.
-
I would like to see individual round types modeled. It would reduce the generic feeling of guns.
I do not think that they should be player editable, unless strigent rules were applied. What would need to be blocked is belts comprised exclusively of the best ammo for that gun, such as a 100% MINE belt on an MG151/20 cannon. A good start would be to model the historically most common belt arrangements, and continue to allow tracer on/off at the player's discretion.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
As far as I know, the ammunition in Aces High is modelled as an "average round" made by combining the damage potential of a bunch of rounds in a belt. For example, a typical LW belt was HE-HE-AP-AP-Mine (dunno if thats the actual order, or just the composition).
Actually it was AP-HE(M)-HE-HE(M) initially. Later in the war they changed it to AP-HE-HE(M)-HE(M). Both belts have 50% HE(M). The specialised anti-bomber Sturm units often used an all HE(M) loadout for one or both pair of guns on the 190A-6/7/8.
-
At least for the LW ammo belting was the pilot's prerogative.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
At least for the LW ammo belting was the pilot's prerogative.
To a degree I'm sure, but if it was entirely so, why didn't all Luftwaffe pilots use 100% MINE shells? They do twice the damage of a normal German 20mm HE shell.
No, if players were allowed to just pick the most damaging round for their entire belt then there would be no point to HTC modeling the belt sequence and they could simply get the same effect by assuming the most powerful shells are always used.
-
I think the issue with utilizing 100% mine round is that it was a thin walled projectile thus compromising it's damage potential due to poor penetration. It would burst outside of the airframe. The combination of AP/HE made it more effective with the AP round clearing the way, as it were and then the mine round bursting within the airframe. But as usual I could be wrong. Sikhboy will correct me no doubt. :D
-
Originally posted by Karnak
To a degree I'm sure, but if it was entirely so, why didn't all Luftwaffe pilots use 100% MINE shells? They do twice the damage of a normal German 20mm HE shell.
It was not "to a degree" it WAS the pilot's prerogative. In the LW the aircraft were considered its pilot's "personal aircraft". There were a lot of customised rides flying in that air force (different types of propellers, armament etc.).
The HE(M) shells had no tracers, and had poor armour penetration characteristics. In AH vs. planes I would probably go for a 1 HE(T) + 3 HE(M) belting if given the choice.
-
Imagine the poor overworked staff at HTC no having to COAD individual belting for the likes of us!!!
I would be satisfied if the Axis 20mm worked at roughly 80% efficiency to the hsso 404. That might actually be closer to reality anyway. especially in the MGFF and the type 99-1s, those cannon are all but useless. while they weren't as efficient as the later models they were by no means useless. One should reasonably expect results out to 300m.
Question on the P38 cannon.
Was it a Hsso or an Oerlikon model?
If it were an Oerlikon wouldn't it then be similar in design to the MGFF?
:D
-
The Tpye 99I was a total POS, and as far as I know the Japanese didn't use a Mine round. I think the Type 99I is fairly accurately ****ty. It has the worst MV of all the 20s, and I find it impossible to reach out beyond 100 yards (I swear, I suck with that thing).
I guess my point is, there's no justification for changing the Japanese cannon, it would be more effective to add the A6M3, and fix the problem the same way the Japanese did: Make a new gun (the Type 99II)
As far as the "80% as effective as the Hispano" I don't understand where this comes from. Is it your assumption that Pilots would have included 9 HE(M) rounds for every 1 HE round? I guess the point is, if HTC models the rounds as Hybrids (which I don't even know is true) then what makes any % of HE/HE(M) more valid than any other?
Lastly, no matter what is done with regard to adding more HE(M) rounds to the MGFF, it will do little, if anything to improve the range on that gun. The only way they are going to get results out to 300m is to make a bigger round.
The P-38J and beyond had Hispanos. I don't know about the F and G models.
As a final note, I'm a Yakman. Have you tried the ShVAK? That things a POS. I might give my Kidney for a VYa-23 mounted on that thing lol (and I know that it was probably never used in combat in that configuration).
-Sik
-
Sikboy, you don't know what you're talking about. A normal MG151/20 belting of 50% HE(M) would be about equal in destructive power to the Hispano Mk.II. A pure HE(M) loadout would be twice as powerful.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Sikboy, you don't know what you're talking about.
You're absoultely right about that GScholz, I'm only going by what has been posted in this thread, and what's on Tony's website.
Wotan posted that the Brits felt the HE(M) round was the rough equivalent of the Hispano HE in destructive Power. Tony's website shows it to be a bit better, but not the 2x you seem to be indicating.
edit: I just looked, Tony's site has the Hispano HE round with a damage of 82% of the HE(M).
-Sik
-
Hey, what do you know... After doing the math, Storch was right, and I'm a handsomehunk.
According to Tony's site (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm) A belting of 50% HE 50% HE(M) would have 88% the destructive power of a Hispano loaed with 100% HE. I excluded any tracers because I'm lazy.
I'm not sure why, but the first time I ran the numbers I think I subtracted the power of the HE rounds on accident lol.
That's pretty cool stuff.
-Sik
-
My guessi-math was a bit off too:
According to Mr. Williams' site the MG151/20 has a "gun power" of 192 with typical belting while the Hispano II is rated at 200. So for all intents and purposes they are equal in firepower with typical belting.
Destructive power:
20x80mmRB (MG-FF) HE(M): 206
20x82mm (MG151/20) HE(M) 236
20x110mm (Hispano II) HE: 201
Rate of fire (rounds per second):
MG-FF: 8
MG151/20: 12
Hispano II: 10
Gun power with best belting (one second burst):
MG-FF: 1648
MG151/20: 2832
Hispano II: 2010
As you can see with a pure HE(M) belting the puny MG-FF is 82% as destructive as the Hispano with all HE belting. The MG151/20 is a whopping 41% more destructive than the Hispano's best.
-
The problem with using the "gun power," is that it takes information from the "Cartridge Power" in Table one, but we don't know what forumla he uses for Belting. That's why I used the "damage" collumn from the first chart, so that you could isolate the power of the individual rounds, then multiply by the number of rounds.
While ROF is obviously a huge factor in how good a gun is, I was more trying to see the difference in the effectiveness of an actual hit.
-Sik
-
Wotan posted that the Brits felt the HE(M) round was the rough equivalent of the Hispano HE in destructive Power.
From Tony's site:
If we compare the values with the few data known from ballistic tests, we have some indications that the factors assumed in the calculations are realistic. The 20x80RB M-Geschoss and the 20x110 (Hispano) HE were rated as about equal; the greater blast effect of the M-Geschoss was countered by the greater penetration and kinetic damage inflicted by the Hispano.
If we use the AH Hispano as a base then its easy to question whether the M'geschoß rounds are even modelled, or to ask whether they are diluted by being averaged across the belt.
Again (and someone test it again for AH2) the MGFF losses a great deal of lethalty beyond about 240yards. While the MGFF may have a lower muzzle velocity this doesn't necessariy equate to a large loss in lethality. What it does do is reduce hit probrability.
As Tony points out of his site:
1. The kinetic element of destructiveness is measured at the muzzle, not at combat range.[/b] The subtext of this argument is that the .50 Browning, having better ballistics than cannon, retains a higher percentage of its destructiveness at long range than cannon.
In fact, while it is true that most cannon shells slow down more quickly than the .50 calibre bullets, it is not true that their destructiveness reduces pro rata. As has already been pointed out in this study, much of the destructiveness of cannon shells lies in their HE/I content, which is not affected at all by the striking velocity as long as it is sufficient to actuate the fuze. So while both .50 bullets and cannon shells lose kinetic effectiveness with range (the cannon shells at a faster rate), in overall destructiveness (kinetic +chemical) most cannon shells actually lose effectiveness more slowly than the bullets.
It is also worth pointing out that most successful attacks in WW2 took place at fairly short ranges at which different projectile ballistics would not have had a major effect on destructiveness. During 1940 the RAF rapidly dropped the harmonisation distance for their fighter guns from 370 to 230m, and were annoyed that the narrow gun bays in the Spitfire's wing prevented them from harmonising the 20mm cannon down to their preferred distance of 180m (at which they did most ammunition effectiveness testing). Although successful attacks at longer ranges were possible, particularly against large, stable targets like heavy bombers (as the Luftwaffe discovered), it seems probable that the great majority of shoot-downs took place between 100 and 300m. This is often not appreciated by players of combat sims, who think that the ability to score routinely at ranges of 1,000m or more in their games reflects WW2 reality – it doesn't!
I don't question the lethality of the Hisso in AH, but from my experience the MGFF is pretty useless unless you are in very close.
I never took MGFF of the A5 (which should have a 90 round drum option; the 90 round drum fit into the same space of the 60 round drum) because the added weight vrs the lethality gain wasn't worth it.
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
The problem with using the "gun power," is that it takes information from the "Cartridge Power" in Table one, but we don't know what forumla he uses for Belting. That's why I used the "damage" collumn from the first chart, so that you could isolate the power of the individual rounds, then multiply by the number of rounds.
While ROF is obviously a huge factor in how good a gun is, I was more trying to see the difference in the effectiveness of an actual hit.
-Sik
I don't know what belting Mr. Williams uses, but a API-HE(T)-HE(M)-HE(M) belting gives an average round damage of 172.75 against the Hispano's 201. Factor in a 20% higher rate of fire in the MG151 and you get 207.3.
-
Ballistics. Rounds that fly straighter/faster are more practical - and in that sense - more powerful as a weapon.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
I don't question the lethality of the Hisso in AH, but from my experience the MGFF is pretty useless unless you are in very close.
I never took MGFF of the A5 (which should have a 90 round drum option; the 90 round drum fit into the same space of the 60 round drum) because the added weight vrs the lethality gain wasn't worth it. [/B]
If the HE(M) rounds were being "averaged" into a hybrid round, would that explain the drop off in lethality? Given that the normal HE round relies more on kenetic damage? Or is this off?
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Zanth
Ballistics. Rounds that fly straighter/faster are more practical - and in that sense - more powerful as a weapon.
At typical combat ranges the differences in "time on target" on all these weapons (MK108 excluded) is insignificant.
-
If the HE(M) rounds were being "averaged" into a hybrid round, would that explain the drop off in lethality?
Here's my opinion:
MGFF
HE + low kinetic energy = greater loss of lethality at range
Hisso
HE + high kinetic energy = higher level of lethality at range
I could agree on that. However its my opinion that the loss of lethality over range for the MGFF is to great.
Also by averaging out the effect of M'geschoß over the belt individual rounds are less lethal., ie it takes more hits to get the same effect as 1 M'geschoß.
So more hits per kill and at a reduce range as compared to the Hisso.
This is just my opinion and I certainly don't know any more then the rest of us.
It is my opinion that velocity at impact determines a greater portion of damage. Take a buff attack 6 o'clock.
When the first BoB scenario was run in AH I was the Axis Co. We tested many ways to defend /escort and formations for the Ju-88.
We found that if the Ju88 were attacked form 6 o'clock by an attacker at a high closure rate the effect of the defensive guns improved.
Since the attacker is coming in fast the Ju88 gunner could open fire and a greater distance and the enemy would fly into the round. Not only that, the faster the enemy the more damage they would receive.
We did several tests with the Ju88 level and slow, the hurri coming in fast and with slow closure coming in from 6. The slow Hurri can take more hits with less damage.
My orders to the Ju88s were to keep speed if attack head on of from the flanks, in fact shallow dive and get fast as possible.
Once the initial attack was over the enemy were left in tail chase.
When being attacked from 6 I ordered the Ju88s to reduce power to get as slow as possible. In the event the JU88s had the highest k/d rate then any of the fighters.
As I said this just my opinion and guessing.
This maybe explain the 'ho lethality' when 2 planes come head on the closure rate is so high that in adds to the lethality of their guns.
Ballistics. Rounds that fly straighter/faster are more practical - and in that sense - more powerful as a weapon.
non-sense...
-
"Ballistics. Rounds that fly straighter/faster are more practical - and in that sense - more powerful as a weapon."
Rounds that fly fast also tend to scatter more...
-C+
-
Originally posted by Charge
"Ballistics. Rounds that fly straighter/faster are more practical - and in that sense - more powerful as a weapon."
Rounds that fly fast also tend to scatter more...
-C+
Probably not exactly true. I think it has more to do with the ballistic co-efficient of the bullet as far as how much they tend to scatter. Obviously there is a sweet spot for loading an accurate round and gun barrel design comes into play but ballistic co-efficient gives a good idea on how inherently stable a bullet is going to be starting out.
The .50 was very effective vs fighter planes. I suspect that if the U.S. planes were being used for knocking down bombers as a primary role then they would have had to design more cannons into the fighters. I'm thinking that the .50 was a great fighter killer because it had the power (with multi-gun loadouts) combined with straight trajectory, range and high rate of fire yet was still light enough to allow a large ammo loadout.
On a side note.....
I don't completely understand the "I hate everything Allied (or American)" crowd with respect to AH planes. The Mustang was a great plane...fact of life. Is it an "Easymode" plane?.....depends on how you fly it. Every plane in AH can be easymode if you just run around in a big crowd and swoop in for the pick or some such similar tactic. It's certainly a fast plane, and folks tend to run alot in it....but several non-US planes are exactly the same in that respect. In fact the cannon armed planes to a certain degree or even easier to do so in (harder to hit with but far more damaging when they do hit).
Oh well just my two cents. I'm no expert with regard to plane modelling so I can't say if AH models are precisely correct or not. I will say that I just started messing with the 109's and they are pretty nice rides....especially those little F and G2 109s, they are quite agile.
Zaphod
-
The problem is, no matter how the numbers are drawn out, what actually happens when the flying bullet meets the air is different everytime. This stuff is all non-linear. There's certainly a 'tendency' of how or which path the bullet trajectory follows, but it always varies more or less - which, under certain circumstances, will determine if the bullet hits or misses.
More bullets in the air means more different factors working at the same time. For instance, if you fire 6 bullets at the same time, in some cases(preferably MANY cases) all of those 6 rounds might hit a certain area within a certain circle of diameter. However, in other instances, some of them might diverge and miss.
The problem is, for non explosive shells, of all those entire set of possibilities, only one ideal instance draws up its maximum potential to do damage. All 6 rounds must converge, and connect at a very small point, in order to do a great deal of damage.
If those 6 rounds are scattered along the surface due to variety of reasons that cannot be figured out by numbers alone(air conditions, wing twist, target plane propwash, vibration, malalignment due to convergence, etc etc..), then the chances of the set of bullets for a single burst doing maximal damage, decreases greatly. A stray bullet might sever a cord or puncture a radiator, but it also might do nothing but make a small hole.
The HE shells of cannons are different. They do their maximal damage all the time. Unless its a total dud, whereever or however the round hits the target it will explode and knock out a chunk from a plane, which will immediately effect its flight capability.
So the problem with multiple machine-gun mounted planes is, that it needs to mount more number of weapons to make up for the lack of pure power, and it still could not be as effective as a cannon round. The USN evaluated the Hispano Mk.II as worth three M2 50cal brownings.
To match a Spitfire mounted with two Hispano cannons a Mustang needs six 50 cal guns, and that still might not be effective if the convergence ranges are wrong, or if the window of opportunity to open fire an a target is too short(since the lack of power means a concentrated length of gunfire is required to immediately damage the target on a critical level).
So, why suffer all that extra weight of six machine guns and loads of ammo, when in overall effectivity only two cannons and its ammo load can offer the same results, or even be superior??
-
I don't understand why someone would bring "'I hate everything Allied (or American)' crowd" into a thread like this.