Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Krusty on May 13, 2006, 02:37:08 PM
-
Mixed belt ammo... too hard to code?
Suggestion: For any gun that has "mixed ammo belts" (AP, HE, HEI, API, etc etc) take that gun and make as many of it as there are different types of bullets, then stagger the firing sequence.
Example:
AH now: 1 gun, "averaged" damage bullets, but every bullet is the same.
5-round burst:
Fire-fire-fire-fire-fire
My suggestion (radical as it may seem) will use a hypothetical gun that fires 2 AP rounds, 1 tracer round, then 2 HE rounds, and repeats.
3 guns
Gun 1 (fires only AP): fire-fire-pause-pause-pause
Gun 2 (fires only HE): pause-pause-pause-fire-fire
Gun 3 (fires only tracer): pause-pause-fire-pause-pause.
The effect is thus: You get mixed ammo belts without having to code every single frakkin' round on the gun belt (this is GOOD, because aircraft have MANY hundreds of rounds per gun). The guns are all in the same place, are damage-linked (one goes they all go, thus that "gun" is damaged, and only 1 shows up in the damage list).
Each "sub gun" would have only one type of ammo, with a finite amount. Example: if my hypthetical belting of AP-AP-Trc-HE-HE was used on a gun with 400rpg, then take 400 and multiply it by 40% (160 rounds) for the AP gun, 400 x 20% (80 rounds) for the tracer, and another 40% for the HE (160 rounds).
No need to keep track of whatever bullet is in the gun at any given moment. No need to track where the belt is when you stop/start firing. Just code an interruptor system so that the guns fire staggered, then all the other code is already there (gun takes bullet, fires bullet, remove bullet from ammo count, repeat). The ammo counters already cumulatively add the ammo up, so that already works, too!
Like I said it's crazy, but it would work. The only bit of code you'd have to add would be 1) stagger the firing of 3 guns so that only 1 gun fires at any given time and 2) link the damage so that if any one of the guns goes all do. The rest we already have.
-
Just to clarify, I meant "for every gun that would have belted ammo, add this many guns exactly in the same place, taking up the same spot in the wing".
I.e. say the MG131s in a Dora were modeled this way, instead of 2 guns, you'd have 6, but 3 exactly in the same spot and the other 3 in exactly the same spot.
Each gun would have it's own ammo load, but it would all show up in the same ammo counter. If one "unit" of guns is damaged, then all those types of ammo associated with those guns is unavailable, just like we have currently modeled in AH. The basic idea is to use what we have with the least amount of coding to get the desired result.
I hope I explained that clearly. If not, fire some questions at me I'll see if I can reword/explain better.
-
While this might me more "historically accurate", how would it enhance game play?
I can see it actually causing more whining. "I want to change the loadout so my inner .50s have all the HE and the outer .50s have all the AP and tracers, so I can take down buildings easier without wasting ammo!"
Or : "Why is it when my AP gun gets hit, all my guns get hit? That just isn't right!"
With the way the BBs are, the less reason to whine, the better IMHO.
-
No, the mixed belts would be accurate. Players would have no say in what they loaded and how often.
But, for example, the mine round in LW rides was stronger than even the hispano round for explosive power. However, the LW guns are "averaged" so they lose a LOT of power due to the other 5 rounds next to the mine round. Specifically this would add the chance of a better hit.
Also, along with this idea I was sort of thinking of a tracer option that said "only when belted" -- so that you didn't get tracers every 5 rounds, but only when it was historically in the gun belt. That was another idea I had, but not important.
The idea is that we currently have averaged damage. Averaging is pretty unhistorical, especially with diverse belt loadings. It simplifies the damage of the guns. Belted ammo has been requested before, but has been thought too complex to truly implement. My idea was a way around that "complex" problem by requiring only 1 or 2 code changes to use.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
My suggestion (radical as it may seem) will use a hypothetical gun that fires 2 AP rounds, 1 tracer round, then 2 HE rounds, and repeats.
3 guns
Gun 1 (fires only AP): fire-fire-pause-pause-pause
Gun 2 (fires only HE): pause-pause-pause-fire-fire
Gun 3 (fires only tracer): pause-pause-fire-pause-pause.
All you need is simple counter for each gun which determine ammo type. And as far i know, there is such counter already, because not every bullet is tracer (even if i wrong it easy to add).
I believe main task is different damage for different bullets.
-
Yes, different damage for each bullet, that's the point. However I don't think there is a counter like you say, because that's just a visual side effect. We don't know how that's 'coaded'. With my suggestion each "gun" would have its own type of bullet then you stagger them to simulate the belt mixture.
-
too confusing for me but i like it :aok
-
noone will load anything else then HE rounds
been there done that
-
Like I said, it's NOT up to the player to decide. It WOULD, however, benefit several gun types to model all the different rounds used.
-
Would definately be of benefit to the Browning. I like it! :D
-
Originally posted by Krusty
However I don't think there is a counter like you say, because that's just a visual side effect. We don't know how that's 'coaded'.
"Visual effect" requires same source data as "damage effect" (related to types of bullets). No matter how that coaded, there are 2 different bullet types already - "regular" and "tracer". No need for any exotic solutions to add one or two more types.
btw, i dont think fixed belts will improve gameplay. It just cause lots of complains and frustrations. Its only my opinion of course.
-
I don't think they'll give any advantage to LW guns which would benefit from this
accurate representation, there can be only gun which destroys your aircraft from 2 rounds at 800yards and that's the Hispano.
Imagine the whines if the LW guns actually performed like the should instead of being the impotent joke that they are now. :noid
-
I don't really think that the LW guns would benefit or suffer much one way or the other.
I've posted a lot of comparitive stuff way back when I cared (including going to individually modelled rounds), but I don't think it'd do much.
Going fast and loose here, lets say that a LW AP round is 2/5 as strong as a Hizooka, and a LW HE round is 1/2 as strong. Then there is the mine round, which is probably 6/5 as strong as a Hispano round (if I rmember Tony's numbers right).
The standard LW belting was 2 ap, 2 he, 1 mine. As of right now, every round is modelled as being about 3/5 as strong as a Hispano round, unless they changed things since I tested the guns.
So if you hit a plane with 10 LW 20mm rounds, right now you do ~3/5 the damage 10 Hispano rounds would do. So if we arbitrarily say that a Hispano round is 1 damage, you'd do 6 damage with your 10 rounds.
Lets say they go to individual rounds. Now your 10 rounds do (4*2/5) + (4*1/2) + (2 * 6/5). Your 10 rounds do 1.6 + 2 + 2.4 damage ... also known as 6.
"But wait!", you say, "I will have a chance at really putting a hurt on some guy with a snapshot if this is modelled!". And that is true, actually. 1 out of every 5 bullets will do more damage. But 4 out of every 5 will do LESS damage than they do now.
So I'll give you another hypothetical. We all know that the Hizooka can remove the vertical stab or both horizontal stabs if one round lands right on it. We also know that the LW 20mm can't do this (or if it can, I've never seen it.. and thats ~10,000 lifetime kills in 109s and 190s). So lets say that the Hispano round is again 1 damage, which is enough to knock the tail off a plane. If one out of every 5 rounds is made to be a little more powerful than a Hispano round, then that round will also be able to kill a plane in one hit.
But how often is that going to happen? I'd guess that out of all my kills with Hizookas (which is also quite a few), maybe 5% of them were one hit kills. That is 1/20. So lets say that I'd have about the same chance with the LW guns. So the chance of a one hit kill is (1/20)(1/5) or 1/100. That is a 5% chance of hitting the tail, times the 1/5 chance of it being a super-round.
Is a 1/100 chance of an instant kill really worth losing damage on 80% of the rounds coming out of the LW cannons?
-
Another question -- wouldn't the mine round vs AP vs HE all have different balistics? So if you are firing at longer ranges, you have just in essence added another dispersion effect, haven't you? As currently modeled, at least all the rounds of a given gun have the same trajectory.
Again, bravo for the effort at realism, but in terms of "game play", I am unconvinced this would be better.
-
They would essentially have the same trajectory, what changes is the creamy filling which by what they hit. I think Urchin it would be better if the other bullets would be impotent is one in 5 caused much more damage than what it does now, it only takes one tater to blow up an aircraft essentially,sometimes you get duds in AH, but the Mine round even if it did 1/2 of the damage and according to T. Williams be as powerful as a Hispano round with its HE content it would be MUCH more than what it currently does, when you cover an La7 or Typhoon frmo top to bottom with 20MM rounds of MG151 and they fly off as if nothing happened and they get you with a 1/2 sec snapshot and your whole empenage flies off as if it was made of paper mache.
-
Originally posted by Glasses
They would essentially have the same trajectory, what changes is the creamy filling which by what they hit.
The "creamy filling" is the point -- different densities (weight) of a like-sized and shaped projectile will mean different rates of deceleration, right? AP does damage by being dense and having the carrying power to punch through armor plate, whereas HE would be less dense (weigh less) and not have the same carrying power (velocity) over distance.
Of course, wait to fire until d100 and then the point is moot. But the long range shots I believe would be affected.
-
Originally posted by E25280
The "creamy filling" is the point -- different densities (weight) of a like-sized and shaped projectile will mean different rates of deceleration, right? AP does damage by being dense and having the carrying power to punch through armor plate, whereas HE would be less dense (weigh less) and not have the same carrying power (velocity) over distance.
Of course, wait to fire until d100 and then the point is moot. But the long range shots I believe would be affected.
Long range and MG151s are an oxymoron :D
-
Originally posted by E25280
Another question -- wouldn't the mine round vs AP vs HE all have different balistics? So if you are firing at longer ranges, you have just in essence added another dispersion effect, haven't you? As currently modeled, at least all the rounds of a given gun have the same trajectory.
Again, bravo for the effort at realism, but in terms of "game play", I am unconvinced this would be better.
No, the ballistics would be pretty similar I'd think, especially within AH's firing distances (~300 yards). The Mine round weighed a little less and had a little bit higher muzzle velocity, so it'd lose speed a little faster... but I don't think it would affect much.
-
I actually went back and looked up one of my old threads.
Per it...
Tony Williams ranked the Hispano round at 201 "damage points". The MG151 HE round was 110, the AP round was 109, and the Mine round was 236.
So the HE and AP rounds are ~55% as effective as a Hispano round, and the mine round is 117% as effective.
In other words, my first guess was pretty close... so I think even if they modelled the rounds individually I think you'd end up with my first post, not something dramatically different. If anything, the LW guns would be a little bit worse overall if individual rounds were modelled, if the modelling was done in accordance with Mr. Williams measures.
-
Along your origional line of thinking, Krusty....
I
Remember a documentary about I think it was the Battle of Britain....
and it was a thing about how the pilots converged their guns at (say) 250 instead of regulation (say) 600.
The guns were then loaded: one pair-amour peircing
one pair-incendiary
one pair- HE
one pair- (well, have a brain fade here)
That might be easier to code.
-
Follow up to Ridley1's post.
Even easier to implement on Spits -
For 8xMG Spits - Ia, IIa
3 MG were ball rounds
2 MG were AP rounds
2 MG were MkIV incendiary tracer
1 MG was Mk VI incendiary
or alternate
4 MG were ball rounds
2 MG were AP rounds
2 MG MkVI incendiary
For 4xMG Spits - Seafire, IIb, Vb, Vc, IX's and upwards.
2 MG were AP
2 MG were Mk VI incendiary
From RAF tests -
Mk IV - Ignited on firing 1 in 10 chance of igniting fuel tanks.
Mk VI - Ignited on impact 1 in 5 chance of igniting fuel tanks.
[edit] As to which MG got which loadout, I haven't been able to dig that up yet, or whether it applies to Hurris.
-
im afraid this idea wouldent work becuase you need certain rounds for certain things but i dont use viechles that offten beucase im to lazy to drive for 35 min to the enemy airfield