Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Ripsnort on April 23, 2001, 07:52:00 AM
-
If you want the 'long range, slight advantage gunnery modeled in current FM'...then you have to spend perk points on it.
If you want the same gun range that all aircraft with .50s have, then its no cost.
-
now this might be a good use of perk points
------------------
Chuck Perry
"Sky61"
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
If you want the 'long range, slight advantage gunnery modeled in current FM'...then you have to spend perk points on it.
If you want the same gun range that all aircraft with .50s have, then its no cost.
maybe if u select the ubber guns, u also get
alt restricting power loss, say limiting the buf to 25k max alt.
-
I dont like the idea. But I am often in the position of having to fight my way through fighters to get to a target.
Good perks for bombers would be
The yb40.
The B29.
Window.
German glide bombs.
Grand slam
-
Yes, it is time to fix the buff guns. In fact, it is time to fix ALL the guns. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
"50 Caliber Weapons Report" contains an interesting 8 minute video prepared by the U.S. Marine Corps to demonstrate barrier penetration performance of various .50 caliber ammunition. The video can be viewed on your PC using RealPlayer. A link to the the video is published below.
http://www.house.gov/waxman/Guns/50/Video/video.html (http://www.house.gov/waxman/Guns/50/Video/video.html)
While this video is of modern .50 BMG performance, it makes it clear that this is a very, very powerful round.
For "standard" WW2 type ball ammo, here are some figures.
http://www.gunnery.net/warwagon/50bmg.htm (http://www.gunnery.net/warwagon/50bmg.htm)
"The following data is for Military Surplus "Standard Hard Ball" .50 BMG FMJ Ammo. This is not Match ammo and is not the most accurate ammo available, but it will do just fine against hard targets out past a mile (1600 meters).
Caliber .50 BMG [Browning Machine Gun]
Bullet Weight - 709gr FMJ-BT [Full Metal Jacket - Boat Tail]
Muzzle Velocity - 2850 - 3028 fps
Bullet Drop Chart (in Inches)
100y/92m = +28.2
200y/183m = +51.9
300y/275m = +70.5
400y/366m = +83.6
500y/458m = +92.9
600y/549m = +89.3
700y/641m = +81.4
800y/732m = +65.0
900y/824m = +18.2
1000y/915m = Zero
1100y/1007m = -49.8
1200y/1098m = -112
1300y/1190m = -191
1400y/1281m = -288
1500y/1373m = -404"
Here's a bit of information about .50 BMG as they exist today. While they perform better than their WW2 counterparts, the WW2 ammo was not all that much inferior.
http://www.house.gov/waxman/pdf/50cal.pdf (http://www.house.gov/waxman/pdf/50cal.pdf)
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE WEAPON
Fifty caliber rifles are among the most destructive and powerful firearms sold legally in the United States. These weapons, which weigh approximately 28 pounds, can be used to hit targets over a mile away.
The original military purpose of these weapons was to destroy jeeps, tanks, personnel carriers, and other vehicles. Their tremendous force provided tactical advantages for armed forces by enabling a single person to disable multiple vehicles in a matter of seconds. The massive strength of these weapons also allowed them to be used against many objects other than
vehicles, such as bunkers, fuel stations, and communication centers.
The term “fifty caliber” refers to the size of the ammunition used in these weapons. The
diameter of these rounds is ½ inch (or “.50”), although their lengths vary from about three to six inches.
Fifty caliber rifles are “accurate” up to 2,000 yards, meaning they will strike the intended btarget within this range. These weapons are “effective” up to 7,500 yards, meaning that, although accuracy cannot be guaranteed, the round will cause its intended effect at this distance if it strikes the target.
Their effective range of 7,500 yards is equivalent to 75 football fields lined up end to end—a distance of over four miles.
These weapons can penetrate several inches of steel, concrete, or other reinforced
substances, making them particularly effective against light armor. In fact, they are so powerful that many ranges used for target shooting do not have sufficient safety features, such as reinforced
backstops, to accommodate them.
One text, The Ultimate Sniper, provides an account of a Michigan ammunition dealer test-firing his fifty caliber rifle. According to this report, the dealer “test-fired his bullets at simulated wooden frame houses and found they blew completely through six houses—not six walls, six houses!”
In addition, The Ultimate Sniper states:
How can anyone exaggerate the .50-caliber performance? Here’s a bullet that even at 1½ miles crashes into a target with more energy than Dirty Harry’s famous .44 Magnum at point-blank. But tremendous energy can hardly be surprising for a cartridge that’s five times larger than a .30-06—indeed, its 750-grain projectile is almost twice that of many elephant gun cartridges."
Clearly, our .50 BMG ammo that suddenly disappears from the calculations at about 1.0-1.3 is not realistically modeled.
Clearly, a 750 grain bullet that hits an aircraft at 1.5 MILES (that's out around range 2.5 in AH) with the muzzle energy of a .44 magnum (@ 850 ft/lb) will tear up the aluminum skin, slice hydraulic lines, crack magnesium or aluminum engine blocks, cut control cables and in general cause significant damage.
I believe this is true for all of the other aircraft ammuniton, from ALL countries, as well. There can be no doubt, for instance that the large caliber German ammunition has a similar "accurate" and "effective" ranges. I think we would find a similar situation with respect to the cannon rounds.
So, I'm sure ALL true "realism" fans will support the effort to convince HTC to go ahead and realistically model the realistic terminal performance of all the ammunition.
The artificial termination of bullet tracking by the program at or around 1.0 must be fixed!
Realism fans UNITE!
Thank you for your support!
-
"Realism fans UNITE!
I agree with you Toad, and add the tremendous dispersion, vibrations, gun melting and brake effect derived of having the guns (up to 8) placed in the wings (no wing roots precisely).
And about "50 Caliber Weapons Report", is it related to P51/47/38 MGs?
Suppose a "20mm Caliber Weapons Report" related to the M61 and having Spit pilots wanting those results because their guns are also 20mm.
-
Absolutely Mandoble!!
As many people have pointed out dispersion actually INCREASES your chances of landing a hit. Both Pyro and HT have pointed this out. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Let those barrels melt for those who hold down the trigger!
As for "break effect" I assume you mean a loss of airspeed for sustained fire? I think Funked has shown that this is already present.
And as you suggest, the present .50 BMG M2 Ball and tracer data is INDEED very close to WW2 performance of those same rounds. Bullets, velocity, energy and trajectory are not much different at all. Great to have such data available isn't it?
I'm not sure how current M61 20mm rounds compare to WW2 Hispano. You might ask Mr. Williams.
Welcome aboard the Realism Bandwagon!
Glad to have you supporting realistic bullet/shell terminal performance out past 2.0 for all countries in AH!
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 04-26-2001).]
-
<Punt!>
Wow! Where are the legions or true realism fans?
I thought EVERYONE was for max realism. If we're going to get this done you lads are going to have to speak up so HTC can hear ya!
Line up, Sign up and Re-Enlist today in the fight for more REALISM!
-
Absolutely with you on this one Toad. And while we're at it, drop all range info from icons so you will have to judge deflection just the way they did back in WW2.
After all, you want TRUE realism, right?
Oh, and make sure that things like Magnus Effect are modelled for guns while you're at it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Jekyll
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
Aces High Training Corps
-
I agree with this one
-
Yep, drop the laser range finders and you can make them bullets hit at whatever range they were supposed to hit and do damage in RL.
Add dispersion, gun jams/meltdowns, sun glare (aaah! the sun! the sun!) and it may be good.
Until the laserangefinders are gone, it would be ridiculous to have such ballistics. Heck, I could spray my 2000 rnds of .50 of my P-38 at stuff over d2.7 and smile all the way (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Also to be of note, LW pilots used their CANNONS to fire OUTSIDE bomber gun ranges. So yeeeha buff pilots, if this is implemented you are MEAT. Bhuahahahahah
-
Agreed Toad!
More realistic gunnery'd be welcome by me
(by me: is this correct english??? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) )
Ciao
Lucchini
-
All right! Now we're getting somewhere.
Glad you agree that all the guns need to shoot much farther, probably twice as far as they do now.
We're going to have to get a much more sophisticated damage map as well.
Imagine this situation:
You're 2.5 (about 1 1/2 miles)away from a Jug pilot who is barreling in on your wingtip with a 90 aspect. He's a good shot, he leads you and snaps off a 2 second burst from 8 .50's. At 80 rounds/sec from each gun, 1280 slugs are headed your way, dispersing of course. Dispersion, as we all know actually increases the probability of a hit. When they get there, each one has about 850 ft/lbs of energy. If just one hits the side of the canopy it will punch right through. If your head is in line with that, the inside of your flying helmet will look like a pot of strawberry jam. Instant pilot kill. We want realism, so no complaints, right? No more bullets disappearing into another astral plane at 1.0! The HTC computer will have to work a little harder, but ...REALISM!
As for Icons, they HAVE to go. Of course, this totally phony compressed field of view has to go as well and at the same time.
As Vermillion pointed out in another thread:
"Actually the "zoom" feature is not an actual zoom, like binoculars or anything. What it does is change your field of vision.
Flight sims like AH, use a 90 degree field of vision (to simulate your normal vision plus peripheral) and squeeze that down to what you see on your monitor.
What this causes is that objects look like they are smaller at a given distance, than they are in real life.
For example if your at 400 yards, it looks like your at a much farther distance because the planeshapes are smaller.
What the "zoom" function does is to change your field of vision down to 45 degrees, which is approximately what your normal non-peripheral vision is.
So you can't see as much of the area, but objects look correct in regards to size at distance. In other words, when you are in "zoom" mode, and at 200 yards, thats how big it would look in real life from that distance."
So the zoom is only giving you what it would really look like thru the gunsight in real life."
So, we have to end this totally unrealistic compressed field of view. It allows you to see far more of a situation in a glance than a realistic pair of eyeballs could. It gives you totally bogus SA abilities.
Once we cut down the FOV to normal, everything will appear much larger, of course. We'll have to have more views and a way to quickly scroll through them too, since with each "view" you'll only cover about 1/2 the sky you are seeing now. Perhaps some sort of trackball to roll the eyes around, possibly slowing as G's build over 4 or so.
We need more detail to. In RL (TM) on an AH clear day you can tell if the gear is up or down on a multi-engine bomber size aircraft at 2 miles, about say, 3.5 or so in AH. Now you can't actually see the gear like the tires and brake lines, but you can easily see a shape change in the silhouette from the clean to dirty configuration.
We need more REALISTIC DETAIL!
Thanks again for joining the Realism Bandwagon!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Jekyll, I doubt Pyro needs to worry about Magnus Effect. First of all, current ballistic programs are highly accurate in predicting real-life results. Secondly, smooth objects tend to exhibit reverse Magnus Effect do they not? This would sort of be counter to what you seek, if I understand your innuendo correctly. There's no cricket ball seams on a bullet.
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 05-07-2001).]
-
I have seen this "meltdown" term kicked around for a few times in the bbs. Could someone please advise just how many rounds are needed to fire to "melt" the gun??? Also advise how long a period of fire is required in relation to the ammo loads on AH game planes. Please advise what the minimum cooling time between bursts is to get the barrel cooled in a 150 to 350 MPH air stream that can range from +70 degrees to -30 degrees. I'd like to know as I have never seen a gun "melt" in real life after spending quite a bit of time on a machine gun range with 30 and 50 cal MG's.
Please tell me, does ANYONE in this game really hose ALL their ammo out in one burst????? I never have and haven't seen anyone else do it yet. How many kills do you get that way???
Mav
-
"For example if your at 400 yards, it looks like your at a much farther distance because the planeshapes are smaller"
Easy to fix that: Increase the size of planes 3d models (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
BTW, I have wasted ALL the ammo on a P-38 in one long burst. Fricken Lancaster still kept going on. Had to end up ramming the mugger.
-
wrong tac, then it seems like the planes are moving in slo mo
the answer is 40 inch monitors
-
Secondly, smooth objects tend to exhibit reverse Magnus Effect do they not? This would sort of be counter to what you seek, if I understand your innuendo correctly. There's no cricket ball seams on a bullet.
Don't need to be seams Toad.
You ARE aware no doubt that a Nato 7.62 M80 round fired at 2800 ft/sec will miss a stable target set at 4500yds by over 100yds due to Magnus Effect and the resultant Yaw of Repose, right?
BTW Toad, wherever did you get the idea that a WW2 .50cal MG would fire 80 rounds in 2 seconds? The ROF for a .50cal M2 was 800rds/min. In the example you gave above (8 guns/2 sec burst) you would have not 1280 but 208 .50cal projectiles headed your way.
Or are you hoping for a P47 with 50 machine guns mounted on it?
[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 05-08-2001).]
-
Even asside from the clerical error, Toad has some good points. I dont agree about the field of view thing though. I never new the effect of it on field of vision but I think the result is better then the alternative. You have to factor in peripheral somewhere.
I think that long burst effects on the weapons is one of the big technical issues missing from the game. And as to dispersion it does increas the chance of a hit I suppose but only of a ping. It lessens the chance of a kill of course.
The loss of range icons would greatly benifit the more experianced player. While I think it would be better, it would be a real barrier to entry of the sim.
-
FOV:
This would be nice if some kinda view device were invented to move the view around as fast as your eyes and head move and was independent of the stick. Perhaps a device that can track your eye movement or slight head movement. Or the use of multi monitors each with different view: left front,then front,then right front. Then a switch to have the same view to the rear.
<sigh>FOV has got to be the most difficult thing to model as there is so much in RL that can't be done on a puter (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
HTC has come the closest with the zoom system and head movement. I just don't see how you can give up too much of what is in the current view arena and still have it as simple and easy to understand as it currently is.
Sure there is alota room for improvement, but a new person to the sim might have to spend way too much time learning the view system as to just flying!! Realism is nice and prolly can be done, but the lust for realism could distroy the game too!!
Balance, just where is the balance? I think HTC is on the right track regarding the balance issue (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Don't other kind of games have this FOV issue? Or is this just an issue for sims that model RL?
[This message has been edited by 1776 (edited 05-08-2001).]
-
What Zigrat said! Big monitors! Even better, full dome projection! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Jekyll
Once again, the main point is that modern ballistics programs very accurately predict where a bullet will hit. Magnus Effect may be a player, but it doesn't affect the ability of program to compute where the bullet will land. I haven't done much research into ME simply because of that. It doesn't matter WHY a bullet does what it does as long as you can accurately predict the path. THAT is very easy to do if you have the ballistic coefficent of the projectile and the muzzle velocity.
As for the 7.62 Nato, I can tell you it is one of the most accurate rifle/lmg rounds ever produced. That's why it's a National Match benchrest favorite.
http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/Longrangeballistics.html (http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/Longrangeballistics.html)
That's an excellent page on ballisitics. It explains a lot of things, including gyroscopic precession in bullets (that's what you are trying to get at in the ME, right?)
"Like a gyroscope, the bullet will yaw and precess as it spins on its way down the range. A certain minimal amount of this precession is required to keep the bullet 'tracking', keeping it pointing along its trajectory. If the bullet did not precess and went completely to sleep' then it would maintain its launch angle throughout its trajectory, which means that on the final part of the flight, when it is descending, it would still be pointing up, thus presenting a much larger cross section and substantially increasing drag. This is the extreme case of what happens when the bullet is spun so fast that the stability factor 's' is greater than about 3. The gyroscopic forces will prevent the bullet from tracking and the drag goes through the roof for the final part of the trajectory. If the precession is greater than that required to keep the bullet tracking then the result is again an increased effective cross section, giving increased drag and leading to disappointing ballistic performance.
To keep precession at the right level the first thing is to keep the stability factor from around 1.1 to 1.5 for your bullet of choice. Do not use the Greenhill formula to calculate the rate of twist you need, use of this formula is pretty much guaranteed to give you a twist that will stabilize the bullet. But, especially with secant ogive or VLD bullets, Greenhill's formula can suggest twists that will overstabilize the bullet, preventing it tracking well at long range. The computation is not a trivial one, but there are computer programs available which will do this. (See the 'Programs' section of this website.)"
So, as you can see, it can be determined an accounted for in bullet design.
As for accuracy of the .308, I haven't seen data for it a 4500 yards. I can give you this from a benchrest however:
From the same site:
"This technique is much favored by 1000 yards bench rest shooters, who look for ten shot group sizes of the order of 3" or better!".
As I mentioned, the round itself is very accurate. Shooting from an aircraft mounted MG would of course give different, somewhat poorer results. I think it's impossible and irresponsible to guess at that here.
I'd like to see your source for the 4500 yard data. I'd think that 4500 is way beyond "accurate" range for the .308 and very possibly beyond "effective" range for the round as well. I've seen various sources put the .308's "effective" range at either 800m or 2000 m; nothing over that. Most of the .30's would have the same problem, I'd think. Sounds like an interesting site, though.
I will again point out the .50 BMG data mentioned above:
"The original military purpose of these weapons was to destroy jeeps, tanks, personnel carriers, and other vehicles...
Fifty caliber rifles are “accurate” up to 2,000 yards, meaning they will strike the intended target within this range. These weapons are “effective” up to 7,500 yards, meaning that, although accuracy cannot be guaranteed, the round will cause its intended effect at this distance if it strikes the target."
So 2000 yards is most certainly within the "accurate" capability of this round on things as small as jeeps. I suspect the similar rounds from other countries are close in performance.
As for the incorrect math, sorry. Glad you caught it. I do make unintentional mistakes, like everyone else.
Now, all the above being said, my initial comments in this thread and a few others like it have been made for one reason.
There's too much flaming about realism. This is a game. Compromises and unrealistic elements have to be made. That should be obvious to anyone.
Of course we ALL want it "as real as possible". That brings up the problem of "selective realism". We all seem to want the "real things" that we personally feel are the most vital, most important. We just don't agree on what those are. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
...and so the flamefests begin.
The point of the whole exercise is to highlight the fact that compromises have to be made and there is no one "realism" or "groups of realism" that are going to be perfect.
We all know it. I hope we can all be rational rather than "selective" about realism.
Thank you and good day. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 05-08-2001).]
-
BTW, here's a pretty amazing testimonial to John Browning's masterpiece. It only shows what can be done with match bullets and a cutting edge match rifle...but wow...what accuracy out of the .50 BMG!
http://www.50-bmg.com/ (http://www.50-bmg.com/)
"50 bmg tactical reaches a new level with the EDM Arms Windrunner XM107. This rifle is designed from the ground up to be the most rugged, accurate, and portable heavy caliber rifle on the market today.
Accuracy guaranteed minimum 1/2MOA@1000 yards with match ammo. Documented 5 round groups of 1/2MOA at 1004 yards(5") and 1700 yards(8"). This rifle is far superior to the current anti-material heavy caliber tactical rifles. It is capable of accuracy matching the best .308 tactical rifles with the power and extended range of the 50. "
Amazing.
<EDIT> Found this too...it's an interesting piece on the .50BMG rifle discussion.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a217fe42e10.htm (http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a217fe42e10.htm)
When Campbell and I arrived at the secret range, it was drizzling slightly as we set the slabs of steel into a dirt bank (he'd also brought along a 15-inch-square piece of 2-inch hot-rolled steel that must have weighed 90 pounds), and we mounted his .50 on a shooting bench 100 yards away.
We fired the A.P. first, into each of the three targets, then walked up to examine the damage. The bullet had ripped through the sculptor's piece of three-quarter-inch steel as if it were cardboard. It did the same with the one-and-a-half-inch (cold) rolled steel, hitting it with such force that it blew the flanges of the hole back toward us, rather than out the other side. The (hot-rolled steel that must have weighed 90 pounds) two-inch plate, however, finally stopped it. The A.P. round blasted through to within a quarter-inch of the far side, where it caused a bump-out, but then flagged. The two-incher also stood up to the incendiary ammo, which made a hole with a dark burn mark, but couldn't get through."
It's pretty impressive.
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 05-08-2001).]
-
Hey Toad:
[This message has been edited by BBGunn (edited 05-08-2001).]
-
Dis-reguard above post.
-
Any of you guys see Ripley's Believe It Or Not on TV last night? (May 9)
They had a fellow that shoots old rifles at long range. Filmed him at a range shooting a 125 year old (or close) falling block .45/70 powder rifle. He casts his own lead bullets. Vernier Tang peepsight on the rear, bead on the front (iron sights). His rest was two crossed stick wrapped in leather. He shot from the prone position.
Target was a white buffalo outline set up at 1100 Yards. In the "heart" position they had a black 16" diameter round steel "gong".
First shot... almost dead center on the black gong. (They had a camera on the gong.)
Second shot.... a little low right on the black gong.
Third shot.... almost dead center of the gong again.
Simply amazing shooting from a nice old gun/cartridge combo.
-
I hope we can all be rational rather than "selective" about realism.
Couldn't agree with you more Toad (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Which is why I wonder the following:
AH is supposed to have the 'best' flight models;
AH is supposed to have the 'best' gunnery models;
So why doesn't AH have much of a 'pilot' model? By that I mean, AH 'pilots' can do things that real WW2 pilots could NEVER do. No cumulative G fatigue - no cumulative fatigue of any kind affecting the ability to yank the stick around - perpetually perfect laser-ranging eyeballs - 'LindaBlair' style 6 views, with the apparent ability to lean full forward over the dashboard whilst turning your head through 180 degrees and pulling 6G's in a hard turn.
I agree with you completely Toad. I mean, isn't this the ultimate form of 'selective' realism?
-
Yeah, Jekyll,
Your post is a perfect example of selective realism. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
You've chosen one area of the gameplay program, pilot modeling, and pointed out gameplay concessions.
This after you accept AH as the best flight model knowing there are lots and lots of things (gameplay concessions) that don't "fit" ... say like autopilot in fighters, simplified engine/prop management or super accurate insto-Norden bombsights.
This after you accept AH as the best gunnery model knowing that no gun shoots as far as it should and aircraft in the "normal" compressed FOV view mode are about 1/2 the size they should be (gameplay concessions).
So, yes, you have just posted if not the ultimate form of selective realism, then at least a good example. Thank you.
BTW, did you get to see that Ripley's show where you live? Man, 3 for 3 into a 16" circle at 1100 yards with an iron-sighted .45/70.
I guess he had that Magnus Effect and Yaw Of Repose figured to a gnat's a** didn't he? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 05-11-2001).]
-
Whoa Toad, please read my post again.
I say that AH is supposed to have the best etc....
You'll often read on this board some AH player saying how realistic the FM is.
My own opinion on the matter is something else entirely (and I'd probably be lynched if I stated it on this board), but if you care to take a wander through my previous posts you will indeed see where I support realistic dispersion for buffs or data input required for Norden bombsight, or even introducing torque to the aircraft again (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) The only post that I can remember ever advocating a significant 'gameplay concession' in was in relation to the Me323 Gigant.
As for Ripley's show, I'm afraid that we don't receive that program where I live, but I don't see your point. I've already agreed that we should not have shells artificially disappearing at a predetermined downrange distance, but do you honestly believe that you can compare a guy firing from a fixed position on the ground with one firing from an aircraft moving at 200mph+ in an aircraft moving through the air mass in 3 dimensions, firing at another moving aircraft?
[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 05-11-2001).]
-
So you, Jekyll, DO NOT think AH has the best FM and best gunnery models out there? And the pilot fatigue modeling is not the best out there?
Well, I have flown the major ones available as I am sure you have. AW, FA, WB and this. I'm quite happy here. Sorry you don't feel that way.
If "more realism" comes that's fine too. But not "selective realism". However, I suggest that if we ever get any of these games to be a "totally realistic" simulation, almost no one will play.
Because there's TONS of things about flying that just really aren't entertaining. For example, are you ready to fly 12 hours round-trip to drop one stick of bombs on a realistic "Berlin" map?
Are you ready to go through a 18 month tour of duty and maybe...just maybe...if you're lucky engage in perhaps 50 dogfights?
Pilot Fatigue? Clue me in Jekyll. Have you ever flown any acrobatics? If so, did you ever do very much of it? Like maybe 50 hours total of practice or so? I think you overestimate the pilot fatigue factor, especially considering adrenaline in an engagement.
Secondly, in reality the "average" pilot might engage... MIGHT ... engage in one "extended" dog fight per mission. That's reality. Do you really think he would be so exhausted that he could barely make it home?
Most WW2 "dogfights" were SHORT. Maybe 2 minutes. Long engagements were rare. However, because of OUR totally unrealistic environment, the MA, we do engage for long periods. Which is reality? How should HTC model? How the heck would YOU know if he did it right? Can you run flat out for two minutes? Do you KNOW if that is more or less strenuous than pulling intermittent G loads for 2 minutes?
As for the shooting, I just wondered why Magnus Effect and Yaw of Repose didn't send those .45/70 bullets spinning off into the great beyond. They're such mysterious forces that a simple ballistic computation can't take them into account, right?
The .45/70 is not known to be an exceptional round, either. The .50 BMG is much better ballistically.
Here's another question for you. Have you ever chased another aircraft through the air? I mean no-holds-barred flat out chased him. Do you think it's impossible to keep a dot on the windscreen centered over him for a significant period of time? It takes a .50 BMG about 7 seconds to cover a mile. Think you can't hold a dot pretty precisely over an extending target that long when you are in an airplane? Do you still hold to that incredible statement about it being like "shooting a rifle while jogging?"
BTW, have you ever shot rifles or shotguns very much at all? Have you ever flown extensively?
Just curious.
-
Dear Toad (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
1. No.
2. No, in fact, at present it does not exist at all!
3. Yes, absolutely.
4. Yes.
5. Yes.
6. About 70 hours total.
7. I never suggested that.
8. Dunno, haven't tried to do so for a few years.
9. Yes.
10. No, I never suggested they were (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
11. No.
12. Yes, absolutely.
13. Yes, definitely. You should try it sometime (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
14. Rifles, shotguns, pistols, even a couple of MG's from time to time.
15. Yes, more than you might realise (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 05-11-2001).]
-
Then obviously you and I will never be simultaneously happy in any one ACM game. Your reality is vastly different from the one I have experienced.
Hope you find what you're looking for.
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 05-12-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Then obviously you and I will never be simultaneously happy in any one ACM game.
You might be right Toad. After 11 years I'm getting a bit bored with games: I'm looking for a sim (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
...and after 27 years in sims, I'm more than ready for a game. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
I seriously doubt you'll find a true simulation that runs on a desktop computer with a 19" monitor. It's tough to get the six-axis hydraulic jacks into most home computer rooms.
Have fun on your 12 hour round-trip flight to Berlin. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
I have this funny feeling that the market for THAT is going to be pretty small. Good luck to you.
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 05-12-2001).]
-
well, cfs2 offers much more than AH..
no wait... or is it AH is becoming like cfs2..
no... what am I saying... I mean Fighter Ace..
aw heck, I dunno what im saying. After all, it IS good to have ridiculously overmodelled gun (turbohispano), flying meatball-saucers (n1k) and best of all, y2k tech insta-convergence, insta-aiming of all possible guns (even through the tail! whoohoo) to fire on a single plane buff guns... and not to forget the *snicker* laser guided norden aiming system.. and ...and... oh yeah, screaming billboard icons! Whooohoo!
ahahahahahaha.....
yeah, you gotta love "game" concessions though, makes whatever "realistic" simulation efforts go down the toilet soooo quickly.
In short, its overdone (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Tac,
I hope someday you find the totally realistic simulation you seek.
It may be built someday. Who really knows?
I just wonder if it will be economically viable.
AW certainly wasn't totally realistic to begin with and it had a long, strong run. WB wasn't totally realistic and it had a long, strong run.
I'm reminded of "Back To Baghdad". They worked real hard on realism and pretty much forgot gameplay. Totally tanked, went out of business.
"Falcon 4"? Worked real hard on realism, did a pretty decent job eventually, went out of business. Lives on in the hands of the "faithful".
But, again, who knows. Maybe the next one will create the market that the others have been unable to generate.
-
pulls on the line..
LOOK MOMMA! I GOT A BIG ONE (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Toad - important 'realism' factor.
Pilots would have to 'certify' before being allowed to fly, and once they 'die' (be that crash, get shot down, bail or go linkdead) then they are out of the game until the war restarts.
There would also be no score and no automatic tracking of kills, just hearsay. There'd be no radio comms, definitely no text communications.
Pilots would also not be responsible for choosing their flights or missions; they would be determined by a hierachical structure of non-fliers representing the military, and many of the missions would be simply being up in the air to defend your home base, with little or no chance of seeing actual combat. And you'd have to spend long hours on the ground waiting for the scramble order, you wouldn't simply pick a plane and click on 'fly'. If you are unable to stay online for long enough, you might well miss your squadron's scramble call, and return to find you are under court martial for being AWOL.
Or perhaps the purists suddenly only want to model the actual combat sections of the pilots experience. Oh - odd concession. If that's what you want to model, with all the rest of the realism factors, all you really need is a one-on-one combat simulator. Maybe as many as 8 on 1. But you don't need a massively multiplayer game.
Alternatively, you need a terrain covering from Britain to Russia, Norway to Africa, and you need tens of thousands - hundreds of thousands - of pilots online, many on the ground awaiting scramble orders.
Those of you like Tac looking for an imaginary puritanical-sim, go somewhere else please, like Fly or something. AcesHigh has the potential to be the best convergence of game and sim around. Our aims here should be to provide feedback and suggestions to lead AcesHigh to have and encourage as much realism as possible. Unfortunately that 'realism' may sometimes not be puritanically correct - players thinking won't be affected by altitude or oxygen or cold, pilots will never react in fear of their lives, people are never going to pay for a game that they can only play once till their first game over, because there's no learning curve at all involved.
And these concessions are only the tip of the iceberg.
Fighter's feel that bombers closing fields is unrealistic. But if bombers have cities to bomb, there is no reason for fighters to bother with them. Look at how little concern players show for the cities or HQ right now. You can generally bomb them with impunity. Bombers are a crucial part of the war. Bombers are what air superiority was about in WWII.
Infact a sim of pure fighter combat is unrealistic, in all but a very few scenarios. Pacific? Sorry, you need ships. Europe? Well that limits your planeset, and if there are no bombers, well, erm, why would you be flying fighters? They were escorts for or cap against bombers.
Lastly people need motivation. They need to see bombers as a threat. Bombers need to see fighters as a threat to lone bombers. Fighters need to see the guns on a six-pack of bombers as a threat to be tackled carefully. The guy in the solo spit who finds a pack of 6 bombers needs not to be thinking 'if I throw myself at them maybe I can wound 2 badly before I'm fataly damaged'.
It works in some parts of the game - people see the vehicle hangar and fighter hangars at a base as important targets. But then they seem averse to the destruction of the enemy's fuel and ammo supplies, because that only inconveniences the home side when they take the field.
At the end of the day, what truly, mostly, really counts, is the accuracy of the modelling of the aircraft in the sky, the travel and lethality of the munitions, the handling of the vehicles on the sea and land, the damage models, and the engagement-mindset that the game framework imposes upon pilots. Pilots should be encouraged to prefer surviveable engagements (there seem to be a lot of pilots who aren't)