Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Jekyll on December 04, 1999, 08:02:00 PM
-
First off, I know that the icons on enemy planes effectively give us a radar ranging gunsight, and I know that a lot of the guys flying AH have thousands of flights behind them, and therefore should be experts at deflection shooting.... BUT
When you can be maneuvering with a con 750 yds back, and he is able to systematically remove your wings, tail and other parts with well-placed gunfire... then I have to think that effective gun ranges are a trifle too long.
Long range gunnery effectively negates a lot of defensive ACM, since you have to commence your maneuver at long range simply to survive, rather than at shorter ranges with the intention to force the overshoot and go on the offensive.
Net lag undoubtedly an issue, but last night I had a con 1000yds back who had no difficulty shooting my jinking butt out of the sky. On private channel he stated that he had fired at 750 yds on his FE.
IMHO, effective guns range should be half what it is at present.
Opinions? Flames??
------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm
'feel the heat .......'
-
Jekyll;
I am not sure where I picked this up but, "Objects in the Rearview Mirror They Appear FARTHER than They Are". (Now I got a Meatloaf song banging in my head (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) )
For safety, any NME on my six I consider to be half the distance that I visual them to be at.
In your case at d750, I would have assumed that the NME could potentially be at d325. If a plane is at d1.4, on my six and shooting, they are probably in range.
As another note. I have been shotdown, when looking in my view when the NME was NOT pointing the "Hot End" at me. I had a lovely view of the top of their canopy right up until I became a beautiful fire ball.
Hope this Helps (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Mino
[This message has been edited by Minotaur (edited 12-04-1999).]
-
I may not have explained it properly Minotaur.
On my FE the enemy was 1000yds back. On my enemy's FE (confirmed via radio message later) I was at 750 yds when shot down.
I'm aware that netlag causes objects in rear view to be closer than they appear, but surely 750yds is outside what one would normally expect to be effective guns range.
This becomes even more important if you're in a buff, and are attacked from the rear. Because of netlag, you are seeing your enemy where he was about 1 - 2 seconds ago, and he is seeing you where you were 1 - 2 seconds ago.
So say an enemy is crawling up the 6 of your buff at high overtake. If your buff is doing say, 200 kts, and the enemy is boring in at 350 kts......
He will be seeing you 100-200 yds back of where your true position is (according to your FE), and you will be seeing him 170 - 340 yds back of where he is on his FE. That adds up to a total netlag difference of up to 500yds.
So when you start shooting at that con at 1000yds on your FE, he will only be seeing you 500yds away on his FE. And with effective guns ranges as they presently are, it should not be too hard for him to knock you down.
------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm
'feel the heat .......'
-
My opinion is that some guns are too powerful from close and then again most guns are very weak from distance.
If shot from close, some handful of 13mm is enough to take whole wing out of B-17 if shoots nearby wingtip, but when shoots with cannons and all from 800 yards, can shoot for many many shots just to damage one engine of B-17, which seems wrong. (and I really do mean many)
-
Jekyll;
cc
Mino
-
And I laughed at Spit firing at my 6 from 1300 yards. Until I got wingtip shot off.
He said he was 800 yards away.
-
750 yards is 2250 ft right? That's not even half a mile away. Even a rifle bullet fired at that distance will still have a bunch of energy left. Sure, the bullet shouldn't do as much damage that far out but at only half a mile, there still ought to be plenty of lethality especially if the shooter is hosing down his target.
Without ballistics tables I couldn't tell you exactly how much energy is wasted out that far, but it only has to be "enough". In other words, if a .50 cal round needs X ft/lbs to break an aileron hinge, then that single shell ought to be able to do that kind of damage out to where it no longer has the energy to do create the damage that's modelled. The same thing goes for wing spars, oil lines, and pilot armor. At half a mile, any of the rounds modelled in AH has enough energy to penetrate the top of any fighter canopy in the game for example.
In addition, if any HE shell hits you, it's going to cause a bunch of damage if the round fuzes regardless of how fast the round is going. Sure, it might merely blast a hole in the sheet metal if it isn't moving fast enough to penetrate far, but if there's a cable or oil/hydraulic/fuel line under the skin there, you're toast.
Remember that this is assuming the shooter hits you... Any dispersion effects are a completely different matter and I haven't read anything from HTC about that yet. In my worthless opinion, there will always be squeaking about the gunnery and damage models until computers get fast enough for the programmers to model every single round fired along it's own trajectory including effects of drag at different altitudes, and the materials and actual structure of each plane is also modelled. Until then, we gotta go with what they CAN model, and right now the beta is modelling a fairly high degree of lethality.
I of course don't know their plans on changing/tweaking/finishing the gunnery and damage...
------------------
eagl <squealing Pigs> BYA
Oink Oink To War!!!
-
Even then there will still be squeaking about gunnery right now we do model every bullet, realistic drag's, and despersions. We even model different compontet types against different bullet types.
HiTech
-
You don't have to lean very hard on a Phillips head screwdriver to punch the point through the aluminum skin of a WW2 Aircraft. It's just not that thick.
If anyone here wants to demonstrate the weakness of an MG round at 1000 yards by catching a .50 cal round with their naked belly button at that range, I'd love to watch (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) I'll even film the results for your mourning family.
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 12-05-1999).]
-
Whoa guys.
This thread was not meant as a whine, a moan or a squeak.... it was simply a question as to whether effective guns ranges are a bit out of whack at the moment.
The overall result I think we all want is a fairly realistic representation of all the trials and tribulations faced by WW2 pilots. These pilots did not, of course have netlag problems to contend with. Nor did they have the advantage of radar ranging gunsights, such as we have at the moment with icon ranges.
So providing a perfectly realistic gunnery model, in a simulation which has to take into account the effects of netlag and icons, may result in a less than realistic outcome.
If that means that lethality at a distance has to be reduced below 'realistic' levels, in order for a fairly realistic outcome to arise, then shouldn't THAT be the priority?
After all, it is the overall 'feel' of Aces High which is important, NOT whether every shell maintains its realistic killing potential at 1500 yds.
Damn, I'm sure I've written exactly these words before, only on a different bulletin board (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Jedi, you out there and want to chip in??? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm
'feel the heat .......'
-
It seems like the "dispertion" effect is making it easier to hit at long range, instead of harder. Like a shotgun effect. Especially in the B17G where up to 6 or more .50's are firing at the same point, that puts alot of rounds into a wide area of sky due to the "dispertion" effect. I'm not so sure those bullets are only half an inch wide...?
-
>it was simply a question as to whether >effective guns ranges are a bit out of >whack at the moment.
Well, what do you think "effective" guns range should be and upon what data/info/experience do you base that opinion? I'm always willing to learn something new!
>These pilots did not, of course have netlag >problems to contend with.
Agreed. Nor is there any way to adjust a guns model for netlag, which by its very nature, is continuously variable for each player. So, we have to live with that.
>Nor did they have the advantage of radar >ranging gunsights, such as we have at the >moment with icon ranges.
Agreed. This is something that we could do something about. There have been a lot of suggestions in a lot of threads about minimizing/eliminating icons. I favor that. However, there doesn't appear to be a hugh groundswell of support for that position, nor has any interest been expressed by the designers. We may have to live with this too.
>If that means that lethality at a distance >has to be reduced below 'realistic' levels, >in order for a fairly realistic outcome to >arise, then shouldn't THAT be the priority?
Realism is an elusive goal and exceptionally hard to define in this environment. Most of the people playing this game have never even flown an aircraft. Whose standards shall we use? How do we determing a realistic outcome?
Then there's the ever-looming playability question. So much "realism" has been sacrificed for gaming that it's hard to know where to even begin drawing the line. Make the guns too hard, people will find another venue. Make them too easy and the same will happen.
Bottom line? Make an "honest" guns model, a true as you know how and let the chips fall where they may. You can't control netlag, icons are apparently an indispensible playability feature and there's no way to really determine what a "realistic" guns outcome would be. There's too many variables.
-
Well Toad, all of my experience is drawn from extensive reading. I've come to the following conclusions (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
1. With the exception of the USN pilots, high angle deflection shooting was not an art which was taught to pilots;
2. For the vast majority of WW2 pilots, they needed to be within 300yds, at a deflection angle of less than 30 degrees, in order to get guns on target;
3. Notwithstanding the above, there WERE certain pilots who could obtain kills at long range. 'Screwball' Beurling is one who comes to mind, who once nailed a 109 in a 90 degree deflection shot with cannons at over 800 yds.
4. All pilots were taught to get in close, real close, before firing, in order to have the best chance to actually hit the target.
I would imagine that effective guns range for maneuvering fighters would be somewhere in the order of 400yds.
Just because a ground-mounted machine gun can get hits at a stationary target at over 1000yds does not IMHO deserve much weight.
Put that machine gun on an aircraft, bouncing around at 300kts, and trying to hit another similarly bouncing aircraft and the difficulties in obtaining hits multiply dramatically.
FWIW, the introduction of the shorter range guns model in WB was probably the best thing that ever happened to that sim (once the bug with lost hits was ironed out).
TnB pilots could get into a real close dogfight and see the results of close range hits. BnZ fighters were able to extend away from a fight, just as they should be able to. Energy fighters came into their own, since you no longer needed 800yds plus separation to get you out of guns range.
Just a personal preference, but I'd dearly love to see the effective guns ranges toned down a tad.
------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm
'feel the heat .......'
-
Well, if I understand you correctly, you view it as a playability, not realism, issue.
Now we're into opinion and you probably know the old saying about opinions.
I'm just happy we're not still in the old "hit bubble" AW days.
-
I think you've got my sentiments backwards Toad. I think that lowering effective guns range would increase the 'realism' of the sim. I'm not overly concerned with playability issues, believing that if the realism is right, the playability merely comes along for the ride.
All I am saying is that if 'realism' is the goal, you have to define what you mean by that. Do we mean that every part of AH is mathematically modelled to be as realistic as possible? Or do we mean that the overall effect of the sim is to provide as realistic a model as possible of the trials and tribulations of WW2 air combat.
Frankly, I'd prefer the latter version of 'realism'. And if we accept that any computer simulation has to put up with non-realistic components such as netlag and the compression of views to fit on a 15" monitor, then in order for the overall effect to be realistic tweaks have to be made to the other components of the sim, one of which is the gunnery model.
What was it Lenin said?, "Everything is connected to everything else". In a computer simulation every component is connected to every other component. View limitations cause the need for icons displaying ranges, which makes long range gunnery much easier because we have a perfectly accurate means of measuring distance. And so, if the gunnery model is mathematically realistic, it is actually easier than it was in real life to connect with those 750yd snapshots.
------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm
'feel the heat .......'
-
>"Or do we mean that the overall effect of the sim is to provide as realistic a model as possible of the trials and tribulations of WW2 air combat.
Frankly, I'd prefer the latter version of 'realism'."<
Interestingly, I heard that sentiment almost exactly, in fact almost word-for-word many years ago.
I was chatting with BlueBaron of AW fame when WB first went pay-for-play. BB maintained that AW, table-based FM and all, gave a much truer and more realistic WW2 ACM experience than WB.
AW hasn't changed much since then, other than in the artwork department. Perhaps he's right.
Now let's see. HT says they are modeling each bullet by caliber, rof, velocity, resultant trajectory, slug & explosive projectile and also modeling where it hits on the aircraft and what type of material it hits. In short they are doing the best they can to give "real guns".
The planes appear much smaller here than RL due to perspective but they too are "mathematically correct", thus "realistic".
But it's still too easy to hit.
Maybe we should do some research on gunnery averages for all players. I wonder what our overall average is and what our top 50 guys shoot vs what the bottom 50 guys shoot.
Of course, we won't know at what ranges those hits were made. Maybe the high % are all earned by guys that shoot at the ranges you suggest. Maybe the low % guys take the long shots. That would fit your model of realism, wouldn't it?
What percentage of hits do you think would be realistic?
Another consideration is that maybe it's not the guns model at all. Perhaps those long range kills indicate a problem with the damage model.
I just don't think, everything connected and all, that jiggering around with the stuff that IS quantifiable (and ballistics is one of the more quantifiable, programmable aspects of this sim) is going to help much.
I'd think you'd want them to do the stuff they can do "exactly" as EXACT as they can. The stuff that has to be fudged has to be fudged, like a damage model. Those are the things you tweak for playability and "trials and tribulations of WW2 air combat."
Personally, I think we should make the Hi-alt buff guys fly for 6 hours before they reach a target area. <G> And stick their feet in buckets of ice water while doing it. <BG> Now there would be some trials and tribulations of WW2 air combat!
Just kidding, guys, just kidding!
-
I'll go along with Jekyll here, The first time up in the 190 I killed a buff at D650. The buff lost a wing I wasn't shooting all that well and my conv was set at 300. I would have gone along with the damage if I was D300 or less, but under the conditions I felt it was a cheap kill. I would have thought there would be more dispersion. I've shot target rifles (7.62) out to 900yds and even a slight change in wind can mean "ft" of drift at the target end. So firing from a semi unstable platform (compared to ground firing) moving along at 250mph firing at a target moving at the same speed, maybe making evasives, add the conv problems with wing guns, tracers having dif drop rate etc, etc..I think it should be not so easy.
-
I have to agree with Jekyll here.
To be honest Toad, I DO feel like I am back in AW with hit bubbles. So maybe BB was right (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) I find myself taking shots in AH, at distances that would be impossible in WB's, but correlate very nicely with AW's bubble gunnery.
Last night I got into a great fight with Windle in a F4U vs F4U duel (damn you Windle for that initial E advantage (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) ) We had a great fight going but eventually some friendlies showed up, so I thought I would drag Windle to them.
Well, my teammate totally ignored the easy drag kill, TWICE !! (see if I ever drag to Torch again, but kudo's to Mitsu who tried to save me at the last minute). So I was left with Windle chasing me on my six with equal e states, and about 750-850 distance (750 his FE, 850 on mine).
I was using gentle 1-2 G evasives, so I was not an easy target. But he was able to hit me easily (he called it "dozens" of time on private channel later) and eventually took a wing off.
No I am not a ballistics expert, but to regularly take 600+ yard shots and hit (I find myself doing this, and I am a piss poor shot) .... well that seems off too me.
------------------
Vermillion
WB's: (verm--), **MOL**, Men of Leisure,
"Real men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires ;) "
-
Laika.
Exploding shells dont neccasarily "atrit" an airframe, They can collaps it. Do you test 5 times and see how many times you drop that buff at over 600 yards. I would be supprised if that was your avagage.
I think the guys with very high shooting % are mostly shooting at stationary or still landed targets........
16 kills with one ammo load from a 190 means a very high hit rate.
-
Just a last quick note on this, then I'm going to go judge the effective range of a 12 gauge load of 6's on wild rooster pheasant for the rest of the week (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Yes, Laika, there are some other shooters here. The 3 of the last 4 elk I shot were running at 400+ yards.
Anyway, I just quickly scanned the score ranks for "hit percent." Out of the top 100 guys, 5 or 6 are shooting over 10%. Two of those are right around 15 & 16 % and those are the highest percentages.
Most of the top 100 guys are shooting in the 4-8% range.
Or, another way, 94% of the top 100 guys are shooting less than 10% hits.
Doesn't sound like an excessive number of hits to me.
There are lots of things that go into this discussion. Again I suggest looking somewhere besides the guns model. They've already described in detail how they model it. Sound like they are doing it as well as anyone. Or do you think they're lying to us?
It could easily be the damage model that is frustrating you guys. It could account for a lot of what you are seeing and it is a totally subjective feature.
How do you program the game tell if a .50 round punches a small hole through the fabric covering of an aileron or if it hits and destroys the hinge, causing the aileron to separate from the airframe?
Is the hit map so sophisticated that it "knows" the spot at the end of the center section where the forward wing attach bolt is located? If a single 20mm round hits a wing attach bolt, shouldn't bad things happen?
Of course, three inches to one side of that and you'd just punch through a wing spar bay. In and out, no real damage.
Damage modeling is just one aspect that bears on "long range shooting", too.
...and AW is still available (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Pongo & Toad,
My feel is that there are too many D600+ kills, Not enough dispersion is my guess. If the real WWII aces could do it @ D600+ like we can the wouldn't have bothered much with gun convergence and comments like "only fire when your windscreen is filled with the enemy."
I'm sure the Brits lowered there conv settings in WWII so they could get more kills.... Anyone know what the standard conv setting were for real WWII A/C ??
Toad,
Nice D400 kills on the elk, try it from a moving pick-up and double the distance and thats what we are looking at in AH (btw: as WWII guns sights are non-magnifying u'll have to take the scope off ya rifle (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif))
laika (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Ive found that my most effective guns range is from about midnight to around 6 in the morning. If i go on line during prime time sometimes the guns work some times they dont. Just lighting up a con at 150 yards is no guarantee that any harm will come to him.
Useing the old, one one thousend, two one thousend. method of mesurement. I have counted 5 seconds of sprites on an f4u, during 3 pass,s and he was not hurt till the end of the last second which was don with nothing but MG.
Ive mentioned in another thread that I would like to see laser guns inside of 300yards to overcome this. and not have the guns work at all outside of 300 to solve the other problems. Nothing I have seen has convienced me that "realistic" gunnery will work on the internet. Unless we are all required to get cable.
-
Nice one laika (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
To the best of my knowledge, the Brits started the war with a standard 450yd convergence setting. Once they realised that hardly any of their pilots could hit at that range, convergence was brought in to around 250 yds.
I've got no idea if there was such a thing as a standard convergence for the Luftwaffe, VVS or IJA/IJN. The Americans, however, are interesting in that I think they set convergence around 400yds. Then again, the USN pilots were the ONLY pilots to receive a fair bit of formal training on high deflection shooting. Most other air forces stressed getting in real close, and with a low deflection angle.
For anyone out there who plays golf.. next time you're standing on the tee of a par 5, looking to the green way out there in the distance, just imagine a 35 foot wide aircraft sitting on the green, not moving. Now imagine yourself holding a machine gun, firing at that aircraft whilst jogging on the spot.
Reckon you could hit it with any kind of sustained burst?????
And that's a non-maneuvering target only 500yds away (on average).
------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm
'feel the heat .......'
-
I have a thought about guns range, because I dont' like the idea of "Creative Undermodeling".
One viable and indirect way to effect guns range is to reduce the "Zoom" view factor. IE: Make the target effectively smaller. So you have to get closer to see, shoot and hit.
I did not initially like the "Zoom" feature. Since I now have learned to use it, I find "Zoom" very helpful. "Zoom" does not take me out of the cockpit. IMO it is "A Very Nice Concession to Gameplay".
I am kind of mixed on this idea, but I feel it would work. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Mino
-
Jekyll next time it happens. Ask him how much of his clip he expended. At 750 yrds he either used alot of ammo or is very lucky!
Theres quite a bit of dispersion modeled as far as I can see. Too much for short burst sharpshooting.
If they modeled gun jams (but give us the ability to clear a stoppage! unrealistic?) I betcha long range kills would be few and far between.
-
A few points here.
1. Most people flying this sim have had literally thousands of dog fites and obtained a huge amount of practice at deflection and long range gunnery making comparison to actual wwii pilots unrealistic. The most experienced aces had fites listed in the hundreds at best and most pilots I'm sure were far less than a hundred and of those that actually got a chance to fire at a manuevering target even less.
2. I've got my convergence set at 350 on all my aircraft and I have no problem puttin rounds into a target at 800m. As a matter of fact, I love watching those rounds go well down range, making hit sprites on target, it's my favorite part of the gunnery model (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) The f4 with all that ammo to send down range just makes my day. I'm sure there are alot of other guys that practice long range shots just like I do. With cannons I can do significant damage using less than half a clip provided the bandit flys predictably enough...rolling and jinking dont really help, u need to fly in one direction fer about 2 seconds and then another fer about 2. You need to spoil ur opponents lead.
3. If Hitech says they're modeling each round accurately, I believe them. Ballistic charts and data are easily obtainable. Just because WWII pilots couldnt do what we do after so much practice doesnt mean it aint realistic, just means we have had more practice at our game than they had at there's. Just my 2 cents
CRASH
-
Crash, less than half the clip in what plane?
And are these dead 6 shots or plan view shots?
Im frugal with my ammo, dont like to waste it. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Oh and I totally agree with you. Most of us have had more gunnery practice than any real pilots in WW2.
I dont have a problem with the amount of dispersion modeled, tho some of the 109 nose cannon rounds seem a bit on the wild side. ie. bouncing around inside the blast tube (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
CRASH... do this test.
Find a nice straight street somewhere. Park your car and then walk 800metres down the street.
Then turn around and look at your car. No matter how good a shot your are, you reckon you could realistically hit that thing with a set of machine guns whilst jogging on the spot???
And don't forget. From dead 6 a WW2 fighter has a lot less area presented to you than the back of your car.
Seriously, try the test. You might be surprised just how small that target is at 800m. And we can hit maneuvering targets at that range???????
And that is supposed to be realistic??
------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm
'feel the heat .......'
-
Jekyll,
Do you get the feeling your banging your head on the wall here ??... hehehe
Just out of interest I dug out my range table for the 7.62 target round. Just to get some data (fact not "IMO") on what sort of “dispersion we should be seeing due to things like wind” let alone - wing flex, plane vibration, target aircraft’s slip stream, gun barrel wear, war time ammo standards (consistency), convergence setting, pilot stick movements, control flutter, sight error from a non-magnified gun sight ...the list goes on & on.
I'm using 800yds distance unless stated otherwise.
Bullet drift due to cross wind (wind from 1 or 11 oclock)
8mph = 28 inches
20mph = 72 inches (2yds)
Bullet drift due to cross wind (wind from 3 or 9 oclock)
8mph = 56 inches (1.5yds)
20mph = 144 inches (4yds)
All,
What sorta winds are we likely to see from a 250mph slipstream?, What if a crosswind changes direction? if its 20mph we are looking at a 8yd drift (POI) @ 800yds under ideal (lab) conds, What if the con (or yourself) is working the rudder a little, air turbulence? ....blah ,blah, blah.
Gun accuracy ??
The best a .30 or .50 A/C machine gun can hope for is about 2-3 MOA (from a machine rest, prob fired single shot) that works out to 16 inch or 24 inch groups @ 800 under lab conds.
Now add the best possible accuracy with some wind drift and tell me its still OK to be able cut a wing off a fighter @ 800yds ... now add all the other factors listed above (and some of your own) then answer this question again.
I’m not having a go at anyone here, but think about it.
laika (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
[This message has been edited by Laika (edited 12-09-1999).]
[This message has been edited by Laika (edited 12-09-1999).]
-
Yep laika, I'm banging my head against a brick wall all right (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
As my final word on the subject, I would commend the following study to anyone interested in the viability of long range gunnery.
http://www.concentric.net/~reaper/gunnery/gunnery.html (http://www.concentric.net/~reaper/gunnery/gunnery.html)
Have a good, long read of this analysis, and THEN tell me that 800yd shots are realistic!
This study is a very good starting point for anyone interested in designing a gunnery model for a WW2 sim, and done, I believe, by the same guy who did the terrain modelling for Aces High.
Now if only he'd done the gunnery modelling as well (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Over to you .....
------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm (http://www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm)
'feel the heat .......'
[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 12-09-1999).]
-
Laika:
When I was a young Toad, my rifles didn't have scopes. Didn't need them, didn't have the money anyway. But, time marches on..now I have the money but not the old eyesight. Life just isn't fair.
BTW, I have a (ahem) friend that once shot a running antelope from a pickup doing about 60 mph across an open prairie. One shot kill at about 150 yards, iron sights. 90 degree aspect too.
As for all the .308 data, think of two things: ROF and tracers. They even sell tracer shotshells now to show people how to correct. Think one in five would help you walk MG rounds into the target?
Jekyll, it's one of two ways:
You believe HT has done the best he could and delivered a realistic guns model. If you then want shorter range, you are talking about a playability issue and that's an opinion.
If, OTOH, you believe HT has made a mistake in the guns model and it's not as good as it should be, that's a realism issue. Like the guys complaining about the FM realism issues, if you have verifiable data and can help him improve the programming, do so. If you can't do any better....
-
Toad,
I know there are some great shots out there in A/C and on the ground with rifles etc... but even they don’t have the consistency that we see in AH.
As for tracers they shoot a noticeably flatter trajectories than normal ball, so @ 800 if the tracers are close to the mark the "volume" of your ammo will be going under the A/C .. And I'm sure @ D800 you would not be able to see the rounds (.30 or .50 ball) hitting anyway (dump the hit sprites except for close range or with exp cannon rounds). I’m not saying we shouldn’t get hits at long range more to the point we shouldn’t see wings fall off at that range. From what I have read about WWII gunnery (maybe its not enough) we should be looking at kills at something like … most pilots <D275, good pilots <D400, Aces (top 5 or 10%) <D650. The D800 kills should only be happening more outa luck than skill.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this topic. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
laika
-
Toad: did you read the gunnery analysis I mentioned in an earlier reply?
I too will have to agree to disagree with you. I was hoping that AH would be a fairly realistic 'simulation' of WW2 air combat.
However, from reading some of the replies to this thread, and from reading personal emails I've received from guys who preferred their opinions not to be made public, it seems that we might as well just have lasers mounted on the aircraft.
Perhaps we could rename it "Quakers High" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Jekyll out
-
Laika,
>I’m not saying we shouldn’t get hits at long range more to the point we shouldn’t see wings fall off at that range.<
...and I've been pointing out that it might be the damage model (amongst other things) since my first post in this thread, I think. So, maybe we DO agree.
>From what I have read about WWII gunnery (maybe its not enough) we should be looking at kills at something like … <
That's why I mentioned the hit percents of our top 100 pilots. The top 100 shoot mostly in the 4-8% range; not _excessively_ high. I think we can assume that the better shooters/flyers get a large percentage of these hits at the shorter ranges, too.
We all get pinged at long range; the question is "are the long range shooting percentages really all that hi?"
I'm betting the long range hit % is pretty low but that the damage effects might be pretty high.
Jekyll:
Yes, I read it. HT has probably read it as well. I don't (pardon the expression) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) find it as a "smoking gun" proof that the guns model is way, way off.
I think what would be helpful is definitive stats on how many hits are awarded at various ranges, say 200/400/600/800 yards as a % of rounds fired. Gross and individual stats would be great. I'm not sure that HTC is tracking this or could track it.
At least we could make some sense of what's really going on. If, for example, 95% of the hits of the aforementioned "top 100" (4-8% shooters, mostly) guys are awarded at ranges less than 400 yards, then you essentially already HAVE what you are asking for, don't you?
Right now we have non-quantifiable anecdotal "I got killed at 800 yards" stories. We don't know prior damage, we don't know how many people had it happen, we don't know if one lucky ping took out an elevator in the damage model, we don't know what % of kills occur on previously undamaged a/c at ranges in excess of 600 yards. In short, we don't know anything...but we have opinions.
The question still remains:
Do you think HT modeled the guns as realistically as possible?
If you do, then you are asking for an _arbitrary_ change to the guns model for playability.
If you think the guns are _incorrectly modeled_ that is something else entirely.
Perhaps you and Ogre should get with HT and go over the guns model. Ogre's article gives the impression that he believes he understands gunnery modeling, so perhaps he's a valuable resource. I'd support that; it can't hurt anything. In those open, non-accusatory examinations everybody usually learns something.
That would be a "problem solving" situation, and a positive step.
-
I have noticed sometimes (frequently at times) I miss at close range(150 yds and in). I see my tracers hit, but do no real damage to plane I am shooting at.
Seems impossible to miss, I just get the feeling that I am shooting blanks.
Merry Christmas Everyone!
Mino
-
Minotaur. I have film of me lighting up a player named foxy (real good)twice inside of 200yrds. I didnt even get an asst.
-
TT;
Oddly, I am starting to get the idea it is better to shoot a little farther out. This idea goes "Against the Grain" somewhat as to what a I thought I must do to be successful at gunnery. The 300-400 yard range seems sweet. Zoom is a necessity for me at this range.
I try not to use the heat of combat for my comparison's, but this exception illustrates my point.
Two fights (I was flying Spit - cannon rounds) two results:
1) P-51 at 50-100yds, medium closure, high 7oc shot. (I could smell exhaust fumes) Lit 51 up twice, Fe showed pings, 51 took no damage I could tell as it kept on flying.
2) B-17 at 600-650yds, low closure, 6oc shot. (Basically I was just lobbing in rounds) Took a wing off.
My ping times generally run under 250ms, typically 190-220ms. Got any advice?
Merry Christmas Everyone!
Mino
-
I'd be willing to "drone" if someone wants to do a little actual research on the "800 yard kill". Just give me a shout if you see me online.
After all, that's what a beta is about; testing.
I suggest making up about 6 new accounts for yourself, like "jack1", "jack2", etc.
Then I'll fly on autopilot at 250 kts while you hose me from 800 yards three different times. Use a different account each time so we can examine hit percentages. Put 2 good bursts into me the 1st account, about 4 the second account and then shoot till I die the last time. All of these should be filmed <edit, add> and you need to record how much ammo you use.
Second set of three accounts, I'll do low-g evasives at 300 kts, and we'll try the same thing.
Then we can compare hit percentages and known damage between all these situations.
Not a perfect test by any means, but more than anecdotal stories at least.
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 12-11-1999).]
-
Talking about B-17 and it's guns, you can fire up to 1600 yards and even kill from 1000 yards, should I believe this?
Normally when I kill something with B-17 guns, enemy is around 600-800 yards away, that will rip wing(s) and prolly dust off the plane also.
Tried once to shoot with 20mm guns from 1100 yards, guess did I hit? no, I was sitting there for long time, fixing aim a little more up or down but no hits made.
How comes, when 20mm bullet should travel further than 12.7mm bullet? (not to talk about the difference in effect!!)
-
Time to add my 2 cents. There is a double-standard here when it comes to defining what is realistic. On one hand people want to define realism by real world physics, i.e. do the bullets travel correctly. Fair enough, that's how we set it up. But then on the other hand, they want to define realism by matching results in the game to what they read in historical accounts. Where this fails is that the people who match themselves up to their historical counterparts are totally out of proportion in the amount of practice that they've had at their respective tasks. For example, just in the past few weeks since the tour was reset, Mitsu has fired over 220,000 rounds in combat. How many real pilots have ever fired that much ordnance? If you want to compare the tactics used by real pilots vs what is happening in the arena, you need to find suitable subject material. Talk to some of the newbies and ask them how easy the gunnery is.
On the subject of dispersion, there seems to be a myth that dispersion makes gunnery harder at long range. In fact it does the opposite. All it does is make it less lethal because concentrated fire cannot be brought to bear. However, when firing at a target, you will typically spend more time slightly off target than you will precisely on target. The dispersion gives you more hits because you can still get hits even though you are not precisely on target.
As to the killing effect of a .50, lethality does drop off significantly with range. However, it's not as much as some people would like to believe. At 300 yards, you're looking at a downrange velocity at SL of about 2450 fps. At 800 yards the velocity is about 1900 fps where it is still capable of penetrating over 1/2" of homogeneous steel plate.
However, please bear in mind that damage values are far from complete and are very generic at this point. I'm not trying to state that everything is fine right now, I just want to make sure the previous points are not overlooked.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
Pyro;
cc Thanks!
Mino
-
>"On one hand people want to define realism by real world physics, i.e. do the bullets travel correctly. But then on the other hand, they want to define realism by matching results in the game to what they read in historical accounts."<
I'm hoping most of us are looking for "matching results in the game to what they read in historical accounts" ???. But then thats only what I want from a sim I guess..?
laika
-
Agreed laika, and this brings me back to my original point.
If the objective is a realistic recreation of WW2 air combat, then allowances would need to be made for the fact that we have advantages over RL WW2 pilots (e.g. radar ranging gunsights). If this means that lethality has to be artificially decreased on long range shots then so be it!
Make those 700-1000yd shots so that, although you might be able to hit, it will be just about impossible to get damage from them.
A gameplay issue??? Maybe. But it just highlights the dangers involved in modelling one part of a sim realistically (bullet dynamics), when other parts of the sim (icons) are unrealistic.
Historical-type arenas never seem to have Long range gunnery problems, simply because the icons no longer become a factor. No icons=no ability to judge deflection at long ranges, therefore everyone takes their shots at close range, just as it was in RL.
So, either reduce long range lethality of guns, or bring in HA style icon ranges, say Aircraft type at 1000yds, distance at 300yds.
It's gotta be worth a try at least.
------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm
'feel the heat .......'
-
cc ... What Jekyll said (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) ... I'm hoping we will see a "HA" type arena.
-
How do you tailor the sim to fit what you read though? Who is that based on, the guys who's been playing for a little while or the guy who's got thousands of hours under his belt? It's all relative, that's why I say ask some newbies how easy they think the gunnery is.
In a no icons environment, it's pretty difficult to complain about getting hit from long range because you don't know what range you got hit from.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
Pyro, I think many of the complaints would end promptly if the ZOOM effect was turned down. As it is now the ability to zoom until the plane is 3-4x what it is without allows too much sniping at long range. If they were only allowed the first 2 or 3 levels that we have now they would be very very hard put to deflect and aim properly at 800+ yds.
------------------
If your in range, so is the enemy.
-
Sorrow: I never use zoom to snipe my shots from longer distance, simply because it shakes some and gets better view at tracers without zoom...
When I use zoom, I do use it only to check angle of plane if I really can't see it against the ground, then I unzoom back and shoot (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
When I used zoom to try better shots, my accuracy dropped, then I quit using it, accuracy pops up again.
-
You do realize that Zoom makes things closer to real-life size.
I almost always use zoom when shooting (have it set up with about a 40-45 degree FOV). Why be shooting at a speck when you could be shooting at an aircraft?
BTW I almost never pull the trigger at ranges over 400 usually under 250. 1x20mike mike doesnt cut it for long range spray and pray. Especially with that generic dispersion model.
Used to like closing to within 50-100yrds in WBs find that too scary here. Manuvers are too quick and they DO fill the windscreen.
Put in gun jamming! Not random but from holding the trigger to long and maybe G-load.
-
I believe Pyro explained it best.
Real numbers and physics are modeled. If you get hit at an "impossible" range or deflection angle, better look for answers elsewhere...enemy experience, luck, net lag, own mistakes etc.
Just model them as they were, please no playability adjustments.
-
>How do you tailor the sim to fit what you read though? Who is that based on <
It should be based on the "median" of WWII accounts of gunnery kill ranges, If the real WWII aces said "once I put in a tour in the P51 I could make 800yd kills without too much trouble" I wouldn’t have a problem with the way things are now....But they didn’t.
>the guys who's been playing for a little while or the guy who's got thousands of hours under his belt? It's all relative, that's why I say ask some newbies how easy they think the gunnery is.<
This doesn’t have anything to do with "old hands ver newbies", if anything it will make it easier for the newbies because they wont get zapped at long range by a "ace". Newbies are probably getting jacked off wondering why they cant kill at long range as well. I don’t think things need changing at the closer distances, we just need to make it much harder to get those D650+ kills (as per real WWII ?)
>>ZOOM<<
If we get rid of the zoom function guys with 14-15inch screens will get a handicap compered to someone with a 20inch+ screen... If you think the zoom function is the problem you are missing the point here.
>Real numbers and physics are modelled. If you get hit at an "impossible" range or deflection angle, better look for answers elsewhere...enemy experience, luck, net lag, own mistakes etc....Just model them as they were, please no playability adjustments.<
WRONG ! (sorry Hristo, no offence intended) If they were modelled as they were this topic never would have come up !! There is no way that a good gunnery model can be made from "paper data" only and I’m willing to bet there isn’t a WWII fighter left in the world that still has its original functioning guns so we will never know for sure. There are "sooo" many real life variables that a sim cant account for. Forget the facts and figures for a mo and think about what really happened (if they wanted to kill they got close, not spray & pray at long range) not what a “fact” sheet tells you 50yrs after its all over. I’ve been a shooter since I was in my teens and on paper my guns will do wonderful things, but in the real world it don’t work out.
I know this is still a beta and I should probably shut up until the other stuff (damage model etc) gets sorted out but I feel I must put my 2 cents forward as many people don’t even see the problem, maybe they think they could out shoot the real aces of WWII ?
Pyro, for all my squeaking I feel you guys are doing a great job, and when it comes time to put my money where my mouth is I’ll have my credit card ready…keep it coming (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
laika
-
A Challaenge.
I would like to know 1 thing. How many times have each of you got a kill at 800 yards or more. I realy don't care how many times you have been killed at that range i just want to know how many kills you have done. I for one can not think of 1 kill ive gotten at that range.
And I would like for you to back it up now that we have a film viewer.
HiTech
HiTech
-
This isn't meant as a flame butt to those who "claim" that the gunnery model isn't accurate ought to tell HT that if he changes the gunnery model to suit them, that they will quit flying when they get shot down. i mean if you want to compare it to RL then play it like RL. I know if i were a pilot in WWII i would'nt have wasted my ammo on longer shots either. i mean when the outcome is death if your wrong you darn sure better do it right the first time. Right now we don't have to worry about gun jams if we pull more than a couple of G's, or over heating the barrel, random gun jams, the list goes on. I'm sure one reason they got so close was to macth maneuvers so they knew when to shoot. Also they wanted to return home. Do i think the gunnery model if off, not a bit, if you want someone to model an innaccurate sim go play brand AW. But leave this to the guys who know what thier doing (and doing a fine job i might add). It sounds like you guys like brand W gunnery better, well go play it. I would rather have a true model of how it was not some porked to play sim. Another thing about the guns, ya know they are fixed to a 8,000lb platform flying in a straight line and what they are shooting at is also flying in a line. It's not anything like shooting from a moving vehicle unless you have your Rifle mounted to the car and only shooting straight ahead while on a smooth road. And that's not so hard to hit targets that way. Well thers's my .01 on the subject. Feel free to flame away, but not until you can prove HT is wrong. And i've read nothing to disprove them here or on that sight that was posted.
KJB
p.s. this also a reply to help towards my member status (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif).
-
I too would like to see the films of this purported long range gunnery. A picture's worth a thousand words.
War without death is like poker without money. It is just a game.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
HiTech, I must admit, I've done some frustrated spraying against approx 800-1000 runstang in my La-5. In best case I've seen some hits, but that's all, those hit's are of course 20mm's hits...
-
650 yards is my longest kill. It was a B-17 flying straight and level engaging a bog on its 12oc.
Vast majority are 300 yards and closer.
BTW, I have stopped use Zoom for the most part and my deflection accuracy is up. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Merry Christmas Everyone!
Mino
-
-------------------------
Where this fails is that the people who match themselves up to their historical counterparts are totally out of proportion in the amount of practice that they've had at their respective tasks. For example, just in the past few weeks since the tour was reset, Mitsu has fired over 220,000 rounds in combat. How many real pilots have ever fired that much ordnance?
-------------------------------
Pyro,
Perhaps the reasons why the WWII pilots did not make 650+ yds kills where because they did not have an neon sign over the enemy plane wich told the how far away it was. . .
// -nr-1-
-
I for one can not think of 1 kill ive gotten at that range.
Umm HT, how many times have you opened fire at 800yds range??? I mean, its a bit like a guy saying he cannot hit a target with a bomb from 15,000 feet, because he always bombs from 10,000 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) I usually wait till about 500yds myself, and have no trouble at all getting kills on maneuvering targets at 400yds plus.
On the other hand, I've lost wings/tail numerous times when the con on my 6 is showing D1.2
Maybe just REALLY bad netlag?? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm (http://www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm)
'feel the heat .......'
[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 12-15-1999).]
-
I for one can not think of 1 kill ive gotten at that range.
Umm HT, how many times have you opened fire at 800yds range??? Its a bit like a guy saying he can't hit a target with a bomb at 15,000 feet, because he always bombs from 10,000. I usually wait till about 500yds myself, and have no trouble at all getting kills on maneuvering targets at 400yds plus.
On the other hand, I've lost wings/tail numerous times when the con on my 6 is showing D1.2
Maybe just REALLY bad netlag?? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm
'feel the heat .......'
-
HT or Pyro:
How big are the bullets being modeled? Does a .50 cal round have a 1/2 inch radius, or is it modeled some other way? I ask because even when I take wild snap shots I often see pings register, so I was one of those who assumed that the gunnery model was too easy.
I hope the target doesn't have a <gag> hit bubble (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
--ra--
-
Here's some 190 vs P 51 feedback from the arena:
The P 51 is such a great HO machine because of the .50s, not despite of them.
Their effective range, velocity and relatively flat trajectory make P 51D superior jouster to 190, IMO.
Judging by numerous sorties in AH 190, 4 MG 151/20, it is a waste of ammo to fire them at ranges longer than 350 yards. Of course some shells would hit, but rarely it will do any significant damage. Dispersion is simply that great.
On the other hand, I have seen dedicated P 51 jousters in action. Preparing for HO at d25-30, opening fire at d12 (my FE), and I was damaged before we passed (on my FE). Thankfully to net lag was, I was able to deliver deadly hits to them, after opening fire at some d4-5. Usually I was dewinged at d2.
Now I avoid HO against P 51s and Spits in 190. If it is historical....hmm, I don't know.
But for real dispersion freaks, you should fly MK 108 equiped 109 ! Very hard to hit, d3 is usually max range for dead 6 shots, snapshots are an art of itself, but when you connect.....well, something about that feeling when you nail someone with 90 degrees deflection shot of a 30mm (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Reminds me of throwing rocks at a running cat (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Everything must be planed, opponent moves must be anticipated greatly in advance. Now add compression at high speeds and nose bounce at low speeds, relatively poor 109 down elevator (hmmm !!), mostly poor 109 roll.....you get the picture.
Dead 6 shots should be avoided, in fact. If the opponent does even moderate turn and you follow, 30mm will fall behind him. In HO he will probably fly through the 30mm stream. What counts are planform shots, usually after break turns. Split S can also be hit (by snapshot, not tracking).
Buffs can also be brought down, but it seems slightly harder in latest version.
After MK 108, every gun feels like a laser. Still, I like the MK 108 in 109 nose. Makes you work for the shot. 1 kill per sortie feels like a 3 kill sortie in most other planes.
[This message has been edited by Hristo (edited 12-16-1999).]
-
I don’t think some of you guys realize the power of a .50 cal slug.. An AP round will still have more then enough energy to crack an engine block at a thousand yards, even without the closing speed of 600MPH in a HO.
Note that I don’t defend headons against fighters, its incredibly stupid in most situations. When I see someone fixated on the headon I know I almost certainly will win that fight, since I already have a huge advantage at the merge. The only time I can think of when a HO is an option is basically when Im already dead, as in severely outnumbered on the deck. Forward quarter shots is something different, but intentionally getting in front of someone’s guns is not my idea of smart flying.
-Jinx
The Flying Pigs
-
And a 20mm shell will just bounce off the same engine block I suppose? 20mm AP would be far more damaging than a .50 AP, at any range.
I have no idea why the MK108 should be scattering so much, after all it is installed in the engine block, and firing through the prop spinner. I would think any recoil effects would be minimised in such an installation? Even the B17G shakes around when you fire the guns, it's just too funny.
-
Just my own 2 cents.. but..
I personally think it has nothing to do with the flight model, or zoom. It has to do with there not being a REAL officer to stand you down after a stupid move. There's NO real death when you are shot down. There's no ammo shortage at your base. You aren't in sorties with 24 B17s and 30 odd fighters blazing in. I think that a lot of these long range kills can be attributed to the fact that you can hold that fire button down, go back to base, and be up in the air in a couple minutes max. As opposed to Real life wastage of ammuntion, nessicity to fly with a wing, less flight hours (we have seen more action than most real pilots). etc etc etc.
*shrug*
course, I could be completely wrong :-)
-
Juzz, MK 108 was a light cannon, with heavy shell. It had very short barrell indeed. Shell velocity was fairly low, as well as rate of fire.
I expected it to perform the worst in regard of dispersion and snapshot abilities.
If it is too much, I really don't know. I just know how other guns feel after you use MK 108 for a while (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Eh, juzz..
I didn’t mention 20mm or Mk108 (30mm btw).
However, the .50 Cal shell had very good ballistic properties, some of the German cannon shells had bad, even artificially bad (to improve fusing) ballistics and they where calculated to ‘work’ within a predetermined range.
The 20 and 30 mm HE rounds where even time fused to go off and so limited the range of the rounds.
I don’t think the 20mm AP round was flat nosed and I don’t know of any 30mm AP round for the Mk108, but mixing shells with very different ballistics in the same belt makes for a wide dispersion pattern..
-Jinx
-
Umm, Jinx, don't judge things by WB (especially 2.6) modelling (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
MG 151/20 anti bomber loadout had rounds with flattened nose, to improve fusing, most likely.
But German explosive rounds did not have impact detonator. They had rotational type, which would activate the charge when shell rotation slowed down (inside the target, of course).
However, I am not sure if those shells that detonated by themsleves if they missed were activated by rotaional or timing detonator, but rotational would make more sense.
Still, there are documents on MW loadouts, but I think those warried from one field commander to another. I can't wait for AH to model different ammo mixes.
-
Hristo,
I thought that was what I said..? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
I didn’t even think about WB gunnery, I got the info from many other sources.
I read the fuse was timed, but I guess it could have meant “It goes BOOM after some time in the air”. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-Jinx
(having a slow day at work..)
-
Hristo, German explosive rounds did use percussion fuzes. The ZZ 1505 centrifigal fuze was supposedly used for air to ground firing although I've read the opposite claim as well. It is easily discernible from an impact fuzed round because it is rounded instead of having a flat top. This was a sensitive fuze that was to function on a 2mm paper screen at 100 meters. The self destroying feature on this fuze was just a factor of the rotational speed dropping, within 2000 meters.
The engineering of the centrifugal fuze is pretty neat. The round has a spring loaded plunger that drives the firing pin. A brass spiral ribbon holds this in place. When the round is fired the ribbon unwinds which allows the firing pin to pass through it to the primer. This arms the round within a few meters of leaving the barrel. At the same time little steel balls are forced out to a position where they they retain the plunger. Once the rotational velocity decreases enough, the balls moves out of position and the spring drives the firing pin into the primer.
Here's a question for German munition experts. Are ZZ fuze designations for centrifigal types and AZ for impact types?
I don't know if we'll model different ammo types for the smaller caliber weapons. If we do it will probably be in general terms, i.e. you can select a loadout that favors AP or HE more.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
"The side with the fanciest uniforms loses."
-
Hmmm. Even with different ammo types in a single belt, the dispertion would be more in the vertical due to different ballistic arcs, not the sideways spraying the MK108 does now. Plus only "Mine" HE rounds were used in the MK108(without any sort of self-destruction fuse). Hristo's short barrel explaination makes some sense though. But it still seems a bit extreme to me.
Ooh! Look at this: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Base/1852/Other1.htm (http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Base/1852/Other1.htm) The 20mm shown(20x138B) are AAA, but probably similar to the aircraft shells in construction I guess.
-
>Plus only "Mine" HE rounds were used in the MK108(without any sort of self-destruction fuse). <
Quote from "The Great Book of WWII Airplanes"
(ISBN 0-517-16024-2)
Mk108
Mine/Tracer shell for air-to-air combat.
Electric Primer. Self-destructive. Fuse ZZ1589A.
Muzzle vel 500m/sec (1640fps)
Incendiary shell for air-to-air combat. Electric primer.
Self-destructive. Fuse ZZ1589B.
Muzzle vel 500m/sec (1640fps)
I cant comment on the accuracy of this book but I thought it maybe of interest.
laika
-
Pyro, thanks for clearing these things to me.
Now, few questions. What type of MG 151/20 rounds does AH model ? The ones with percussion or centrifugal fuzes ?
Does damage model take into account that some rounds might bounce off at a certain angle ? Would such modeling favor the ZZ fuzes ?
I would really like to try the centrifugal ones.
[This message has been edited by Hristo (edited 12-18-1999).]
-
I've seen some of the original training manuals for the p38. Max effective range of the 50's was listed as 650m. The cone of fire as diagramed in the manual covered the target with rounds practically from wing tip to wing tip. I'm sure that with ur conversion set farther out, and a willingness to use half a clip u could do some serious damage. You could increase effective range to 800m easy. Wether u can hit at that range is up to u (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I think the damage model may be a hair generous. I'm constantly taking damage or losing wings and tails in head ons that i'm actually trying to avoid. It seems that one burst from a nik or spit from a head on or therebouts tends to cause the various parts of my aircraft to seperate from one another (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) If its actually modeled correctly then I'm just gonna hafta to deal with it, rather than trying to get Hitech to alter their sim to suit my preferences. I think the more preferable solution would be for me to alter my tactics to more aggressivly avoid giving the nme a good head on shot. Along the same line, if ur gettin' killed at 800m then u need to work on ur evasives and or start them sooner.
CRASH
-
I thought that Jekyll made several very good posts with legitimate concerns. There seems to be some kind of "magic" surrounding the 1000 yard figure for armament in WW2 aircraft. I have read a bunch of books on WW2 air combat and I cannot think of one that mentions a kill at 1000yds or even 600yds.
There are no magic bullets. Each projectile is affected by wind and gravity as soon as it leaves the barrel. The basic 30cal M-1 round starts out at around 2410 ft/sec and at 500yds is only doing 1246fps. It had 2837 ft lbs of energy at the muzzle but only 758 at 500 yards and has dropped almost 8 feet! At 1000 yards you might as well be throwing darts at the enemy.
From what I've read the average defensive gunner on US bombers could not get hits much past 400 yards. The sim auto-gunning from bombers which starts at 1000yds (like in WB's) and gets hits is just fantasy land.
Lots of fighter to fighter kills were made at 100 yards or much less. Kurt Buehligen, 3rd highest scoring German Ace(western front) stated that "the best shooting distance was from 300 ft to 150 ft or less". Feet not yards. He should know he was an expert. He further stated that his sight ring would fill with a spit at 1100 feet(366yds) but that that was too far to shoot for a 6 oclock approach. He had to wait until the spits wings far exceeded the diameter of his sight ring. British pilots made similar statements. So I don't think Jekyll made any over-statements at all- I only hope that the programers will listen. In my opinion the half mile kill crap only takes the quality away from flight combat simulations.
[This message has been edited by BBGunn (edited 12-29-1999).]
-
I just read an article on CombatSim, about "George Beurling". I believe George was flying a Spit V at the time of this kill.
But George used Ernst Udet's own tricks on his pilots, he circled tightly and caught a 109 with a long burst from 800 yards and at a nearly impossible angle. He hit the fuel tanks and the 109 went down in flames. In one day he increased his kill to 5.
Under - "WW2 Bio: George Beurling"
http://www.combatsim.com/ (http://www.combatsim.com/)
<Sigh>
It never really ends, does it BBGun? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Mino
[This message has been edited by Minotaur (edited 12-31-1999).]
-
Actually, George's own description of the battle states that he hit the 109's glycol tanks, and the plane dropped away streaming white vapour (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
But you're right about the 800yds, a simply amazing shot bearing in mind it was a 90 degree deflection shot with substantial cannon drop at that range.
Then again, Buzz Buerling was considered as perhaps the best shot of all pilots, on either side, during the war.
My original point stands: that you cannot model one aspect of a sim with perfect realism (gunnery model), while at the same time having another aspect imperfectly modelled (auto ranging gunsight), and still expect that the overall outcome of the sim will be realistic.
It's like a huge balancing act... the overall result you want to achieve IMHO is to make the 'feel' of the sim realistic.... Now to do that with the current limitations of technology means we have to incorporate some kind of icon display to identify enemy targets, particularly in an 'MA' style arena where you are likely to be fighting P51-v-P51 etc.
But does the incorporation of a perfect radar ranging gunsight make the feel of the sim more or less realistic? In fact, what we have in AH, and other sims, is in some ways worse than just a radar ranging gunsight. We actually have an unjammable spherical 8000yd radar device which shows range and closure perfectly. I'll bet the USAF would love something like that for their top-of-the-line F22 Raptor (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
So does our current icon system make those 800yd shots easier, or harder, to accomplish than it was in real life?
And if it makes it easier, then my point is made: that either the icon system or the gunnery model has to be 'tweaked' in order to establish the right balance.
Frankly, I'd prefer the icon system to change: Make estimation of target range a skill which has to be acquired.
Any suggestions??
------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm (http://www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm)
'feel the heat .......'
[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 01-01-2000).]
-
Mustang Aces (William Hess)
John B. England (17.5 kills)
"I immediately dove after him (109) and closing to about 800 yards at 3000 ft. The enemy pilot saw me and started to break into me and was heading for a large aerodrome. I was traveling at approx. 400 mph and made a very tight turn into him and closed to about 500 yards. I placed the enemy aircraft properly within the K14 sight and squeezed the trigger. I got strikes all over the engine and cockpit. The enemy aircraft, burning and smoking excessively, went out of control and crashed into a river 1000 ft below."
Howard "Deacon" Hively (11 kills)
"For a second it looked as if I wasn't closing, so I took two short bursts at about 800 yards just for meanness, when I noticed I was closing rapidly. I chopped everything~~~"
Raymond Littge (10.5 kills)
"I then bounced a 109 that was shooting at a P51. This E/A broke for the deck immediately , and I started shooting at 800 yards to 150 yards, seeing many strikes and setting the left wing on fire"
Louis "Red Dog" Norley (10.3 kills)
"As two 190D's headed toward the bomber formation, Norley chased one of them and opened fire at 600 yards. Just as he fired Norley saw the American bombers ahead of the 190 and pulled off to the right, but the E/A continued on into the bomber formation and collided with one of the forts. Norley noted he didn't think the ramming was intentional because the German was not firing as he closed on the bombers"
<sounds like PK at 600 yards>
Robin Olds (13 kills)
"Fearing that the other 109 would do the same (break for the deck), I ranged him carefully with the K14 gun sight and allowed a small bit of deflection above to take care of the sizable distance between us, which was about 450 yards. I squeezed off a very short burst and got hits, much to my surprise. The Jerry started a slow break to the right. Taking my time I ranged him again, still allowing a little for the distance. Another short burst produced more hits"
Chuck Yeager (11.5 kills)
"I dropped my tanks and then closed up to the last Jerry and opened fire at 600 yards, using my K14 sight. I observed strikes all over the ship, particularly heavy in the cockpit. He skidded of to the left smoking, streaming coolant~~ fire ~~ spin.."
"I closed up on the next 109 to 100 yards, skidded to the right, and took a deflection shot of about 10 degrees. I gave about a 3 second burst and the whole fuselage split open and blew up after we passed"
-
note: K-14 gunsight, very important!
-
Sixr. I really enjoyed your post. It's always wonderful reading actual pilot accounts of air to air kills.
But just what were you trying to say? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
P.S.
Howard "Deacon" Hively (11 kills)
"For a second it looked as if I wasn't closing, so I took two short bursts at about 800 yards just for meanness, when I noticed I was closing rapidly. I chopped everything~~~"
It's a shame the Deacon didn't have the current AH icon system working for him. He would have been able to judge his closure to the yard-per-second exactly (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm (http://www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm)
'feel the heat .......'
[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 01-01-2000).]
-
I guess what I was trying to say is that many pilots took long shots with varying expectations for hits. Deacon didn't expect to hit from D8 without much info on the cons (it all happened too fast), but he knew it was possible. Others at 600 with a high degree of confidence of hits.
Its been said before, it's all matter of seat time firing the guns. The more you fire them at moving targets, the easier it is figuring lead in any setup. A long weekend of flying WB or AH gives you much more gun time than these Aces got in an entire tour of combat. It adds up.
We have icons, they had a K14 and Real Eyeballs(tm) viewing system. It's a wash..
It takes most people a long bellybutton time (if ever) to get good enough to get hits at 800 yards and not just consider it a waste of ammo, or meanness. True, you're still going to whacked by a FNG once in awhile if they spay the clip at you, but that's probably realistic too.
I would venture a guess that the vast majority of WW2 air kills were made by guys that only got 1 or 2 kills total, not any aces. I would also guess that they didn't usually get into nice firing positions for a shot, they sprayed when it looked close enough and hoped for the best. <is there any data on this?>
From what Pyro has said about the modeled gunnery, it's got everything we ever wanted in accurately modeled ballistics for every bullet. I don't think anyone can rationally argue that they did it wrong, seeing as its never been done before. Doing damage at 800 yards is very possible. Doing serious damage at 800 yards is not very likely unless you've practiced your gunnery, expend more ammo than is prudent, and a little lucky.
Get rid of the cockpit warping, add some audio feedback for speed, and this game would be a contender.
-
toad why the hell would you shoot a a elk runnin at extreme distance. you are either hell on earth of a shot (as i myself am) or a bleed killer ( someone who wings a animal uncaring about its sufferin as it drags its guts for 5 or 10 miles till it dies of blood loss or falls and lies in agony till you cut its throat). and in any case not a kind hunter.
do you claim that you hit a 20 to 40 mph movin target at 400 yards 3 out of 4 times ? usin what a m2 or a howitzer? i find this to be patently impossible.
assumin you are god own shot and got a quick kill, what were you huntin with that will kill such a large animal quickly without to much lead for a teliscopic sight (they dont give you much if any room to lead a animal)weatherby? 50 cal sniper thing they have at gunshows ? some monster mag? what were you aimin for heart or eyeball hehe?
not meanin to make you angry but if im wrong please explain how you pulled it off cause guns and ammo is gonna want to do a cover story on you. "worlds greatest shot"
-
After reading the last 79 posts I suppose I've come full-circle on this issue (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that its not a gunnery issue, its an icon issue.
I've only ever flown in half a dozen or so WB scenarios, but the lack of range information in scenarios and in the WB Historical Arena shortened the range at which firing commenced, simply because the shooter didn't have the range info to help him estimate the precise amount of lead for that 500yd 90 degree deflection shot he was about to take.
So while I accept that the gunnery model is fine, I'd still like to hear alternatives to the current icon range model. A sliding range bar beneath the aircraft identifier? No range info at all for aircraft greater than 300yds away? A change in icon colour/transparency depending on range?
There simply has to be a better way of doing things than we have at present.
Suggestions please?
------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm
'feel the heat .......'
-
Jekyll, I'd "blame" the icons. Also, sliding range bar sounds very nice.
Well, how about sliding range bar and country info only, with the bar under the plane ?
-
Jekyll:
Now I'm with ya bud! If HT says this is the best gunnery he can do, I am content. I know I couldn't program it at all, let alone better.
I DO think icons can be way improved (as in none or "the less the better").
Towd:
I shot those elk because I was elk hunting. Duh!
I can make the shots, I practiced a lot and it's no big deal in the group I hunt with. We can ALL do that <G>. We don't view 400 yards as extreme; maybe you do. 500 is long, 600 is getting towards extreme.
All of those elk were found down within 100 yards of where they had been hit, one just dropped in his tracks. Elk are not that hard to kill if you hit them in the heart/lung area. All were with a .300 Weatherby, Leupold Vari-X II set at 5X or 6X, 180gr Barnes X-Bullet at about 3000 fps (chrono).
Others in my group have killed walking elk at a measured 550; I haven't had that opportunity, but if it was a clear (no trees) shot I feel I could do it.
Sorry if you find it impossible; the group I hunt with has been hunting the same area for the last 30 years. The ranges to landmarks are known. We've seen each other do this many, many times.
I'm sure you'll understand that I really am not too concerned whether you, in particular, believe me. <G> The racks are on the wall.
Oh, BTW, I'm not the best shot in the group....<VBFG>.
Practice makes perfect...or at least "better".
-
Good ideas on the icons, i hope HTC are listening.
// -nr-1-
-
This icon issue has been dicussed to death on AGW many many times with many many good ideas and they were'nt listening then. Infact they made them more accurate, down to the yard! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
Prove me wrong HTC.
------------------
Jumpin Jesus on a pogo stick! Everybody knows a burrow owl... lives... in a hole... in the ground!