Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: waystin2 on April 30, 2009, 11:18:03 AM
-
The accuracy of the IL-2 with 37mm needs to be fixed. It is far too accurate as currently modeled. Based on historical documentation it was impossible to hit a target with any accuracy using sustained fire of more than 2-3 shells at a time. The current model allows for sustained fire with no accuracy penalty for the massive jolting that occurs when the cannons are fired in long bursts.
"Proving ground trials carried out at NII AV VVS KA (this abbreviation means 'Science Lab of the Air Force of Red Army'), showed that firing of the NS-37 in the IL-2 was to be done in short controlled bursts-no more than 2-3 shells a burst. This was to be done in accordance with the fact that the cannons were not synchronized to fire together -resulting in massive jolting of the aircraft which disrupted the aircraft's line of fire. The correction of fire was possible in this case."
See link for more information and supporting documentation:
http://www.battlefield.ru/content/view/239/123/lang,en/ (http://www.battlefield.ru/content/view/239/123/lang,en/)
-
I almost never fire bursts at all, unless its a hail mary shot at a fighter some 1k or more in front of me.
That being said I would have no problem with it being adjusted so that after 3 rounds it starts "walking the dog" working the plane back and forth as they get out of sync.
-
Game vs. reality. Lots of differences between the two.. Perfectly still air, etc. Before asking for a fix, it needs to be demonstrated that it wouldn't be an artificial fix. That the current omissions in the physics (e.g. perfectly still air) aren't what's to blame for the discrepency between the game and reality. Which would mean that all other planes/guns are on the same even ground.
-
You want the game to be more like reality? If this game moved 10% towards a more realistic ballistics/damage/lethality model 90% of the people who play today could not/would not hack it.
Enjoy the game you have today, its about as good as its going to get.
-
Thank you gentleman for your responses to this thread.
:salute
-
If the guns weren't synched in real life as the article suggests, then it should be modelled unsynched in AH. I remember when the hurri-2d guns weren't synched in AH, the gunsight was thrown all over the place.
-
If you perk the 37mm and the WB, then you should perk ord too.
-
If you're shooting more than 3 bursts (firing 1 rd from each gun), in a single dive on a GV, you're missing anyways and it's already modeled in.
Even some of the longest attack runs I've made on a single tank I've only fired 3 bursts total before pulling up to avoid augering.
-
Hello Krusty,
It sounds like you are using the IL-2 in a more historical manner, and not spraying everything you have at a target. However the accuracy issue with the cannons does exist, and I do not see this in the current model. There should be a huge site picture disruption when fired in long bursts due to the unsychronized cannons. The model needs to be changed to reflect this.
Have a great day,
Way
-
Wow, it's refreshing to take some time away from the boards. That was a good, reasonable request, waystin; you even backed it up with some kind of evidence.
Fwiw, dweebs like me use 10-20 rpg to kill a tank/wirbel with the Il-2, and I usually try to get those off in the first pass (because I don't plan on surviving long).
-
You need to pinpoint the exact reason for the discrepency, to eliminate the possibility that the game's environment simply precludes that historical trait. For example: at the time, the Ta 152 literally failed to be stable enough for gunnery trials. This same instability, in AH's perfectly still air, translates into a mediocre but manageable gun platform.
-
You need to pinpoint the exact reason for the discrepency, to eliminate the possibility that the game's environment simply precludes that historical trait. For example: at the time, the Ta 152 literally failed to be stable enough for gunnery trials. This same instability, in AH's perfectly still air, translates into a mediocre but manageable gun platform.
Hello Moot,
How would you suggest that I go about doing this? My thought was first of all to use the .target command at a few different distances and convergences to see what the spread truly is at this point. Doing this in the ground and in the air would at least give me a true read on whether there is disruption modeled at all. Do you have any other suggestions? Your help is appreciated!
Have a great day,
Way
-
I reckon it's the flight modeling that gives us more stability than the planes had in reality. It's my cumulative gut feeling from everything I've read and heard. There's a number of short-comings in the FM. For example, planes don't hammerhead as well as they ought to. This is from someone who flies acrobatic in reality. Level acceleration doesn't perfectly match reality either: e.g. the AH Tempest is one of the strongest accelerators, but historical trials show it was at the other end of the spectrum. Or like I said, we have perfectly still air. The Ta152 as modeled in the game wavers a lot unless you keep it in check with very steady inputs, and I reckon if we had real skies with varying winds, drafts, turbulence, etc, it would be much more like the real Ta152 that was borderline unsuitable for combat because of instabilities.... So that's how I see it - it's more due to the flight model, and adding an artificial dispersion to the Ta152 or Il2's guns if my hunch is correct, wouldn't be the right thing to do.
To answer your question, I read the battlefield.ru article ..The worsening of flight characteristics of the new Shturmovik, as with the IL-2 with the ShFK-37, was due to a large mass/wing ratio and the design of the cannon pods which lowered the aerodynamic performance of the aircraft. From an overall point of view, the IL-2 had poor balance; this indefinitely lowered cannon accuracy. This major factor was amplified by the strong recoil of the cannons during firing. According to NII VA VVS KA data (a letter of NII AV General-Major M.V. Gurevich, from 19.11.1943, to S.V. Ilyushin), the maximum strength of the recoil , present for .03 seconds, on a ground-based platform(existing technology of that time didn't allow the measuring of "the strength of recoil" in aircraft and much less in the air during firing) consisted of a considerable amount - 5500 kg, with a recoil average of 2500 kg. All of this contributed to the wide dispersal of shells during aerial firing.
What exactly does that mean? e.g. "Wide dispersal"? They qualify it all negatively, but it's all too vague for us to try and replicate their trials. Not in any way that I can think of... Not unless someone can find a copy of the reference documents with more details of those trials.
-
m00t i don't believe it would require HTC to model dispersion per se, having the guns unsynched would cause the aircraft to yaw because of the the effects of recoil- which AH models. That said i don't know if the guns are synched or not in AH because i don't really fly the il-2.
The old hurricane-2d did behaved in a similar manner as mentioned in the il-2 article. I can understand if unsynched guns doesn't sound like a big deal but it will affect aiming noticably. If you like m00t (or anyone else) I have a retro copy of aces high 1.08 which i can send you to demonstrate how recoil affected the old hurri.
Linking big guns in an aircraft is a pretty sensible thing to do, i'm surprised the russians didn't synchronise them.
-
I remember the old HurriD's wagging..
-
Don't mean to double post, but the 37mm on the AH Il2 fire together. So that's already one thing that could help.
-
Thrilla, do you have any of the old AH1 maps as well?
-
rgr moot, i guess it would alleviate the il-2 being the insta-death machine for gv's it currently is. I'm not sure why i care, i haven't driven a tank in AH for years. :D
Tec, i only have mindanao.
-
I bet if we just find enough sources (especially if someone could track down a primary) HTC would model the guns unsynched.
-Sik
-
What bothers me is if you happen to not knock the IL2 down in one pass they just point straight up and spray.
-
Don't mean to double post, but the 37mm on the AH Il2 fire together. So that's already one thing that could help.
Thank you Moot. I had no idea where to start on the ingame research.
:salute
-
Bump & pray since we are so close to an update...
-
If the guns weren't synched in real life as the article suggests, then it should be modelled unsynched in AH. I remember when the hurri-2d guns weren't synched in AH, the gunsight was thrown all over the place.
I don't think they were unsynched like the Hurri IID was in AH. I think they just got out of synch as they fired. The first round should be synched and then RoF differences cause the two guns to unsynch.
Thatn is how I read it anyways.
-
I don't think they were unsynched like the Hurri IID was in AH. I think they just got out of synch as they fired. The first round should be synched and then RoF differences cause the two guns to unsynch.
Thatn is how I read it anyways.
Thank you for that clarification. I concur Karnak.
-
A quick and dirty way for HTC to fudge this would be for them to apply the 10% RoF reduction for a interrupter geared gun to one of the guns. That way they would start synched and then get progressively unsynched.
-
Where does it say that the guns gradually unsynched?
-
Where does it say that the guns gradually unsynched?
I can't think of any other way they could be unsynched. To do it otherwise you'd have to intentionally add a mechanism to start them unsynched.
-
Here's a description of firing the 37mms from the Soviet Il-2 pilot I. I. Pstygo, commander of the 893rd Attack Regiment. This is taken from the book Ilyushin Il-2 and Il-10 Shturmovik by Yefim Gordon and Sergey Komissarov.
"In my capacity as commander I had to test the machine and get my own impressions of its qualities and armament. I made a flight to the test range and there it became immediately apparent there the precise aiming of the cannon presented a complicated problem. The cannon were mounted in the wings a considerable distance from the fuselage, from the aircaft's axis and consequently from the CG. When firing the recoil was so strong that the plane gave a start in the air. What was worse, after aiming and pressing the fire button I noticed that even the first explosions of shells were not quite simultaneous. The explosions occurred rather close to each other. The second salvo displayed even greater discrepancy in the timing of the explosions. The explosions were occuring at an even greater distance from one another. During the third salvo the aircraft rocked so violently the pilot was thrown about the cockpit from side to side and there was no way of checking this rocking of the aircraft. As a matter of fact only the first two shells hit the target."
Pstygo goes on to say that they learned to fire only very short carefully aimed bursts with the 37mms, but only had time for one or two per diving run.
-
I'd say that's precise enough a description for HTC to model :)
-
Just change ROT fire in one gun.....or generate randon delay between each firing.
-
The accuracy of the IL-2 with 37mm needs to be fixed. It is far too accurate as currently modeled. Based on historical documentation it was impossible to hit a target with any accuracy using sustained fire of more than 2-3 shells at a time. The current model allows for sustained fire with no accuracy penalty for the massive jolting that occurs when the cannons are fired in long bursts.
"Proving ground trials carried out at NII AV VVS KA (this abbreviation means 'Science Lab of the Air Force of Red Army'), showed that firing of the NS-37 in the IL-2 was to be done in short controlled bursts-no more than 2-3 shells a burst. This was to be done in accordance with the fact that the cannons were not synchronized to fire together -resulting in massive jolting of the aircraft which disrupted the aircraft's line of fire. The correction of fire was possible in this case."
See link for more information and supporting documentation:
http://www.battlefield.ru/content/view/239/123/lang,en/ (http://www.battlefield.ru/content/view/239/123/lang,en/)
Just remove F3 view for it = FIXED :aok
-
Just change ROT fire in one gun.....or generate randon delay between each firing.
If the historical ROF disparity was from manufacturing variations, the best way would be a random ROF for each gun, each time you roll a new plane. Some arbitrary value that matches those reports.
-
Just remove F3 view for it = FIXED :aok
I do not feel that the F3 view has any bearing on this.
-
I do not feel that the F3 view has any bearing on this.
Actually it does! You see the 360 degree view allows for extremely unrealistic SA, allowing the F3 user to EASILY adjust to threats creating extremely unrealistic opportunities for overshoots and misdirection! Without F3 view the il2 would be a hangar queen and hardly used unless heavily protected by separation or fighter escort, which incidently would be very relistic :aok. The accuracy of the guns would mean nothing :aok
IMHO F3 view takes this game one step closer to being nothing more than a low end arcade shooter, and I wish wish wish it would be addressed! :pray It's just dumb :aok
Please make F3 view available for bombers with at least 2 defencive gun positions only, not including forward firing weapons :aok
-
Actually it does! You see the 360 degree view allows for extremely unrealistic SA, allowing the F3 user to EASILY adjust to threats creating extremely unrealistic opportunities for overshoots and misdirection! Without F3 view the il2 would be a hangar queen and hardly used unless heavily protected by separation or fighter escort :aok The accuracy of the guns would mean nothing :aok
IMHO F3 view takes this game one step closer to being nothing more than a low end arcade shooter, and I wish wish wish it would be addressed! :pray It's just dumb :aok
Please make F3 view available for bombers with at least 2 defencive gun positions only, not including forward firing weapons :aok
I got ya Shreck. I do agree. If it is to be flown in a fighter type role, no F3 view for you. If HTC chooses to correct the model, then they can get you to overshoot as much as you like because the accuracy of the guns for the spray & pray crowd will be out the window. The guys to be feared would be the fellows that use it more like a tater, and only need a few shots to whack you.
-
Actually it does! You see the 360 degree view allows for extremely unrealistic SA, allowing the F3 user to EASILY adjust to threats creating extremely unrealistic opportunities for overshoots and misdirection! Without F3 view the il2 would be a hangar queen and hardly used unless heavily protected by separation or fighter escort, which incidently would be very relistic :aok. The accuracy of the guns would mean nothing :aok
IMHO F3 view takes this game one step closer to being nothing more than a low end arcade shooter, and I wish wish wish it would be addressed! :pray It's just dumb :aok
Please make F3 view available for bombers with at least 2 defencive gun positions only, not including forward firing weapons :aok
I totally agree :aok
-
I got ya Shreck. I do agree. If it is to be flown in a fighter type role, no F3 view for you. If HTC chooses to correct the model, then they can get you to overshoot as much as you like because the accuracy of the guns for the spray & pray crowd will be out the window. The guys to be feared would be the fellows that use it more like a tater, and only need a few shots to whack you.
Maybe the answer is, make it so you cannot shoot fwd firing guns in F3 view and put a small time delay from switching between views :aok
Wastin I agree with you that the guns are too uber, but I think it is the issue of F3 view more than anything else! just my opinion :salute
-
F3 view has no influence on accuracy, penetration or ROF. I don't even see a vision advantage in using it when shooting enemy gv's..
-
F3 view has no influence on accuracy, penetration or ROF. I don't even see a vision advantage in using it when shooting enemy gv's..
Hmm, I may have misinterpreted the original post as in accuracy vs aircraft!
Actually I've probably just got a burr under my saddle for F3 view :D
I do believe locating and fixing GV position is greatly enhance by F3 view!
-
Hmm, I may have misinterpreted the original post as in accuracy vs aircraft!
I do believe locating and fixing GV position is greatly enhance by F3 view!
Actually I tried to keep it neutral as the gun issue will affect how they attack GV's as well as dogfight. As far as the F3 view, I say create another wish Sir. A lot of us do support your line of thought.
-
The guns weren't syncronised and the Soviets themselves found out that in order for the guns to be remotely succesfull, they should be syncronized and muzzle breaks should be installed to reduce recoil. In Soviet studies it was found that 52% of the hits with the NS-37 rendered a medium tank out of service, and 73% of hits did the same for a light tank. However, hits were only scored on 43% of combat sorties and the ratio of hits to ammunition spent totalled 3%. To destroy a heavy tank like a Tiger the turret roof or the engine compartment had to be hit from an angle of 45-50 degree. The was something majority of the IL-2 pilots could not do.
Just a sidenote...
IL-2 3Ms (NS-37 armed m3s) were first fielded in the august of '43. Total of 96 NS-37 armed IL-2s made combat sorties during these service tests. The pilots who took part of these service trials stated that the aircraft armed with the NS-37s had worse maneuverability and controllability and that those facts made counterflak maneuvers, attack runs and aiming more difficult. The same pilots thought that despite the high efficiency of the NS-37 an IL-2 armed with them was not superior to the VYs-23 armed aircraft as far as combat cababilities were concerned.
As a result of these unfavourable experiences during these service trials on 12th November '43 the State Defence Commitee ordered the series production of the NS-37 armed IL-2 to be terminated.
(Source: ILJUSIN Il-2, ILYUSHIN IL-2 ATTACK AIRCRAFT by Oleg Rastrenin, ISBN 978-80-87161-02-9)
So it was used in combat on service trials only and the trials proved to be unsuccesful and the production was terminated. When compared to the other planes/loadouts there are in AH, it's IMO pretty clear that the NS-37 loadout for IL-2 is hardly AH-material. Wether Pyro was aware of these facts when he implemeted the loadout for AH I'm not sure.
-
So it was used in combat on service trials only and the trials proved to be unsuccesful and the production was terminated. When compared to the other planes/loadouts there are in AH, it's IMO pretty clear that the NS-37 loadout for IL-2 is hardly AH-material. Wether Pyro was aware of these facts when he implemeted the loadout for AH I'm not sure.
That being true, I'd say it would be a perk loadout, but still valid.
-
Oh, let us be honest about it.
We have the NS-37 on the Il2 as a counter to one or two kamikaze attackers simply banging down the VH on an airbase, strafing down ords with a 190, then rolling gv's onto the base or town with no realistic way for the defenders to oppose them.
Now it seems to me the crux of this problem is the fact that one suicide strafer can take down ords so easily in the first place, but that is not the area they chose to address in terms of fixes.
-
That being true, I'd say it would be a perk loadout, but still valid.
Using rarity as a criterion for perkage is a can of worms. I mean, the Ta-152 was about as rare as anything we have in-game, but does not deserve to be perked.
-
I wouldn't normally agree to something like this unless the modeling for all guns would be changed...however; the 37mm is extremely deadly. I don't GV much, so I don't have it used against me really, but I love killing GVs with ease with it. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it was deadly in real life, but not lazer - guided like it is here. Whether it is changed or not, I don't really care. I DO think it should be given some consideration though.
+1
-
Using rarity as a criterion for perkage is a can of worms. I mean, the Ta-152 was about as rare as anything we have in-game, but does not deserve to be perked.
I think that is why it was perked originally.
I just hate to see a) a historically rare thing being common in the game and b) fewer options.
-
I'd like to see the 37mm's accuracy made more realistic, it completely distorts the weapon's RL effectiveness the way it is.
Maybe the Il-2's anti-armour PTAB cluster bomblets could be added as an option to make up for it. These were small hollow charge munitions which could burn a hole through the top armour of any German tank. The Il-2 could carry 192 of these which were dropped in a pattern which covered about 230 ft by 50 ft. I guess it might need some sort of upgrade to AH's code to cope with that number of bombs though....
-
Between the wirby's 3000 round sustained fire without reload or threat of jamming (that includes the Osty and M16), the IL-2's laser AP cannons (37mm), and a host of other direct fire issues in this "sim", it shows that there are vehicles and systems being released into this "sim" that are not being fully researched or tested correctly.
Yeager is correct to a certain extent, but having gross misinterpretations and implementations of weapons systems and their ability to perform far beyond the capabilities both historically and realistically is a travesty. It does nothing but take away from the "sim" aspect and point it towards a X-Box game. I'd like to believe that HTC would rather have a more fine tuned following bent on enjoying a realistic sim vs a hoarde or kids/summer game players looking for a quick game rush for the summer.
I hope, I sincerely hope that HTC is able to grasp historical fact and get it implemented into the IL-2, the wirblewind, and the other uber-vehicles in the game.
-
I hope, I sincerely hope that HTC is able to grasp historical fact and get it implemented into the IL-2, the wirblewind, and the other uber-vehicles in the game.
They can, But they also know they can't make everyone happy. If things are too realistic, people would be crying on the boards anyway. I think now that the IL-2 has had time to be used in game, HTC will take another look at it.
-
Maybe the Il-2's anti-armour PTAB cluster bomblets could be added as an option to make up for it. These were small hollow charge munitions which could burn a hole through the top armour of any German tank. The Il-2 could carry 192 of these which were dropped in a pattern which covered about 230 ft by 50 ft. I guess it might need some sort of upgrade to AH's code to cope with that number of bombs though....
Totally agree. Il-2s did kill tanks and THIS was the weapon they used to do it. I've been wondering that very thing about the PTAB....game would have to trach the trajectory of 192 objects if they were released as a single salvo...
So, of course one can argue that as the PTAB isn't technically feasible NS-37s are there instead.
-
Or track much fewer and then multiply the tracked impacts' distribution to 192.
-
Or track much fewer and then multiply the tracked impacts' distribution to 192.
Yes, of course there are compromises amd work arounds that could be implemented. But I'm thinking HTC would require them all to be visible anyway. That would only be GPU load for users' FEs and not server load, though.
-
"In other words, for the destruction of a solitary tank, vehicle etc... it was necessary to attack with about 15 armored IL's"
In the opinions of flight crews operating on the Il-2 with the NS-37, attacking small targets with the heavier armament didn't differ much from that of the Il-2 with the smaller caliber ShVAK and VYa cannons and a normal bombload of 300-350kg PTAB."
Some more mentions of how many IL-2's required to take down a solitary tank of Panzer IV quality or better utilizing the 37mm cannons. 15 planes to take out that solitary target! Also note that the pilots truly saw little difference between the 37mm and the lighter 23mm with the PTAB's loaded out.
-
I think all of this points to one thing . . .
We should have the JU-87G. :D
-
I think all of this points to one thing . . .
We should have the JU-87G. :D
I agree the JU-87G should be added, but please make a separate wish thread for it Sir.
-
My view:
the IL2 is deadly with the no recoil 37mms, if a tank gets killed by one, the immediate effect is to up a Wirble with it's 3000 round of continuous fire. If you neuter both of these, don't you think it would equal back out?
-
If you neuter both of these, don't you think it would equal back out?
It would be as it should be, provided both are documented fact.
-
It would be as it should be, provided both are documented fact.
Well, said IL2 documents, and with the wirble, it has been stated from facts as well earlier on.
-
Between the wirby's 3000 round sustained fire without reload or threat of jamming (that includes the Osty and M16), the IL-2's laser AP cannons (37mm), and a host of other direct fire issues in this "sim", it shows that there are vehicles and systems being released into this "sim" that are not being fully researched or tested correctly.
Yeager is correct to a certain extent, but having gross misinterpretations and implementations of weapons systems and their ability to perform far beyond the capabilities both historically and realistically is a travesty. It does nothing but take away from the "sim" aspect and point it towards a X-Box game. I'd like to believe that HTC would rather have a more fine tuned following bent on enjoying a realistic sim vs a hoarde or kids/summer game players looking for a quick game rush for the summer.
I hope, I sincerely hope that HTC is able to grasp historical fact and get it implemented into the IL-2, the wirblewind, and the other uber-vehicles in the game.
I do so love the wonderful selective realism.
HiTech
-
Before the peanut gallery chimes in just because they love to see you rip on people, you're missing the point of the criticism HT. It's about consistent standards of what to model realistically, not realism itself. You've done a great job at modeling auto-cannons with historically correct rates of fire and physically correct recoil, but they're pointing out that the Il-2's 37mm and wirbelwind's rate of fire don't seem up to the same standard of your previous work.
-
Before the peanut gallery chimes in just because they love to see you rip on people, you're missing the point of the criticism HT. It's about consistent standards of what to model realistically, not realism itself. You've done a great job at modeling auto-cannons with historically correct rates of fire and physically correct recoil, but they're pointing out that the Il-2's 37mm and wirbelwind's rate of fire don't seem up to the same standard of your previous work.
I am not missing anything, the fact is the same non sync would happen to almost all guns, but he chooses to pick on one thing, he does not like the way we model guns. He wants gun jams, increased dispersion with gun heating and then this great quote 'that are not being fully researched or tested correctly." What a complete utter load of BS. Could it be that we choose not to model those aspects of the game because we believe it would only distract from the game and really add nothing to it.
Think of gun jams for a min, all they would do is be a nuisance and require a person to press one more key to unjam and then continue to fire. Sorry forceing some one to press another key quickly really does not add to the fun, nor simulation of a fight. And lets look at the out come of continual fire vs non continual fire. Who is going to just hold down the key and shoot a lot of bullets. It is not the experienced people because they already would not want to waist there ammo. The new people already have an extremely hard time shooting anything, so all you have done with this type of modeling is making it more of a pain for new people, while doing nothing to ad to the fun of game play.
And why it is selective is simply because he jumps in about only the way the guns are modeled, but uses "Realism" as a be all catch all quest to add to the game. Realism is only a tool to make a game imersive, enjoyable & fun for people to play. Gun jams are none of those things and only distract by having to press 1 more key and really would only effect the new players.
So does his quest also want 2 hour flight times before he is in enemy territory, or flying 30 sorties with out ever seeing an enemy, let alone fighting one? When a person wants a major change to the game, and his only argument is that it would be more realistic, it ALMOST always is a bad idea to implement.
HiTech
-
Pardon me then, I was referring to the more general points about RoF and recoil. The rest of the criticsms you address are indeed misplaced because there is no precedent for gun jams and overheating, etc.
-
When a person wants a major change to the game, and his only argument is that it would be more realistic, it ALMOST always is a bad idea to implement.
Actually when they usually want a major change its so it can help them and their preferred vehicles/way of playing.
Theres another trend in these IL2 whine threads also. That is the ones complaining themselves never, or very rarely, fly the thing. Notice they never cry out for "selective realism" in "their" favorite airplanes. Ive shot 0.50 Brownings. Believe me no game can make it feel real, most of all 6 or 8 at a time.
-
I understand why random gun jams would be bad, but what would be so bad about un-synchronizing all the guns on planes that did not have synchronized guns?
-
I understand why random gun jams would be bad, but what would be so bad about un-synchronizing all the guns on planes that did not have synchronized guns?
Exactly bubi. And the same goes for the wirbelwind's maximum sustained rate of fire, which is twice that of what it really was because of the reloading issue.
Most of us aren't screaming for razor sharp exactness, just something that's within the spirit of the law.
-
Actually when they usually want a major change its so it can help them and their preferred vehicles/way of playing.
Theres another trend in these IL2 whine threads also. That is the ones complaining themselves never, or very rarely, fly the thing. Notice they never cry out for "selective realism" in "their" favorite airplanes. Ive shot 0.50 Brownings. Believe me no game can make it feel real, most of all 6 or 8 at a time.
Hello Rich,
First of all much respect Sir. Second of all, this was never a whine nor an attempt to fit the game to my way of play. This whole thread was born out of actual research on a subject that was interesting to me. Further, I kill way more Il-2's than Il-2's killing me. The nuggets about the unsyched guns was merely a bit of info I came across and decided to share with the community and Hitech. Let Hitech do with it as they please, I am absolutely cool either way. I would do the same with any plane or vehicle if I found new information that may apply to it's modeling.
What is really interesting is how closely tied the Wirbelwind and the IL-2 are in peoples minds. Kind of like they are the poison/antidote for each other.
:salute
Way
-
wastin2 Notice I did not jump on your posts. There is a large difference in asking for something and researching vs statements like this.
Yeager is correct to a certain extent, but having gross misinterpretations and implementations of weapons systems and their ability to perform far beyond the capabilities both historically and realistically is a travesty. It does nothing but take away from the "sim" aspect and point it towards a X-Box game. I'd like to believe that HTC would rather have a more fine tuned following bent on enjoying a realistic sim vs a hoarde or kids/summer game players looking for a quick game rush for the summer.
I hope, I sincerely hope that HTC is able to grasp historical fact and get it implemented into the IL-2, the wirblewind, and the other uber-vehicles in the game.
This is pure and simple an attack on HTC.
So let me point out one example, people claim that each gun fires at a different rate, anyone ever see any documentation in any way of how much they vary? Now I am sure they do fire at a slightly different rate, but also some planes would fire at the same rate. So with no data what so ever why is choosing the same fire rate any better than choosing random fire rates with no idea of how much to vary the rate?
If we did randomize the rates, what would be the result? Quite frankly hardly any.
HiTech
-
I should hope anyone who flys fighters kills more IL2s then vica-versa. My comments werent necessarily pointed at you anyways.
As to the IL2 whinefest? Look, every week we are getting it in some form or another. Lately posters have been camo'ing them in a skin of their own making. That and they are a target for selective realism because somebodys Low Riding Tiger got shot down during their camp out. Its all starting to get real old.
I'll add that cause of it I have removed my self imposed exile from TT and GV base vs GV base tank fights. The slaughter began last night.
Realism indeed.
Hello Rich,
First of all much respect Sir. Second of all, this was never a whine nor an attempt to fit the game to my way of play. This whole thread was born out of actual research on a subject that was interesting to me. Further, I kill way more Il-2's than Il-2's killing me. The nuggets about the unsyched guns was merely a bit of info I came across and decided to share with the community and Hitech. Let Hitech do with it as they please, I am absolutely cool either way. I would do the same with any plane or vehicle if I found new information that may apply to it's modeling.
What is really interesting is how closely tied the Wirbelwind and the IL-2 are in peoples minds. Kind of like they are the poison/antidote for each other.
:salute
Way
-
wastin2 Notice I did not jump on your posts. There is a large difference in asking for something and researching vs statements like this.
Roger.
:salute
-
Since HTC does listen, here is a gratuitous bump. :aok
-
I should hope anyone who flys fighters kills more IL2s then vica-versa. My comments werent necessarily pointed at you anyways.
As to the IL2 whinefest? Look, every week we are getting it in some form or another. Lately posters have been camo'ing them in a skin of their own making. That and they are a target for selective realism because somebodys Low Riding Tiger got shot down during their camp out. Its all starting to get real old.
I'll add that cause of it I have removed my self imposed exile from TT and GV base vs GV base tank fights. The slaughter began last night.
Realism indeed.
:rofl :rofl :rofl Disable F3 view, it is for tards :rofl :rofl :rofl nuff said :aok
-
You guys think resurrecting old threads, old posts, and general sniveling and whining is going to get you somewheres?
I'd say your ship has sailed. (http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/USS-waa.jpg)
Shreck how old are you? Seriously? You babble nonsense like a pooh-butt.
Disable F3 view, it is for tards nuff said
gaaa-gaaa-gaaa-gaaaa. Schreck go gaaa-gaaa.
-
My point is that if a cross section is made of how weapons are used in other aircraft and vehicles in the AH sim, they are far more realistic than the two most abused weapons systems in the game. The wirby and the IL-2 are far more capable than they were in WWII. No, I wasnt there, but I can say that the wirby is magazine fed, I can say that the IL-2 with dual 37mm cannons should recoil at minimum like a single 37mm on the M8. With the latest update, both the wirby and the osty were "nerfed" slightly in their traverse rate. I cant comment directly on how accurate the traverse rate is but I'm sure someone else can dig up sources as to jsut how quick they were.
My comments were not a direct attack on HTC. Yes, I'm a bit perplexed as to how some of the standards (or lack of) are applied, the list is long but like so many topics have shown they go nowhere so why even bring them up anymore.
... and as for those of us who bring this stuff up "because it fits our style of play more", what a knee jerk reaction that has come to be. That couldnt be any more further than the truth, at least in my case.
wastin2 Notice I did not jump on your posts. There is a large difference in asking for something and researching vs statements like this.
This is pure and simple an attack on HTC.
So let me point out one example, people claim that each gun fires at a different rate, anyone ever see any documentation in any way of how much they vary? Now I am sure they do fire at a slightly different rate, but also some planes would fire at the same rate. So with no data what so ever why is choosing the same fire rate any better than choosing random fire rates with no idea of how much to vary the rate?
If we did randomize the rates, what would be the result? Quite frankly hardly any.
HiTech
I
-
You guys think resurrecting old threads, old posts, and general sniveling and whining is going to get you somewheres?
I'd say your ship has sailed. (http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/USS-waa.jpg)
Shreck how old are you? Seriously? You babble nonsense like a pooh-butt.
gaaa-gaaa-gaaa-gaaaa. Schreck go gaaa-gaaa.
F3 is E A S Y - M O D E !
Giggity giggity goo :aok
-
F3 is E A S Y - M O D E !
Giggity giggity goo :aok
Depending on what you are doing.
-
No, I wasnt there, but I can say that the wirby is magazine fed, I can say that the IL-2 with dual 37mm cannons should recoil at minimum like a single 37mm on the M8.
Umm no... the 37x195 is the 37mm used by the IL2
(http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/34-37.jpg)
The 37x223 is used in the m-8.
(http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/37-40mmWW2.jpg)
Since 223 is a bit bigger than say 195.....
-
You guys think resurrecting old threads, old posts, and general sniveling and whining is going to get you somewheres?
I'd say your ship has sailed. (http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/USS-waa.jpg)
Shreck how old are you? Seriously? You babble nonsense like a pooh-butt.
gaaa-gaaa-gaaa-gaaaa. Schreck go gaaa-gaaa.
Let's be polite here Rich. "You guys" lumps me in with views that I may or may not share. The IL-2 fix is due, just want to keep it in HTC's view. With the accurizing of the Wirbelwind, it's nemesis and chief antagonist should get the same accurizing treatment.
:salute
Way
-
Let's be polite here Rich. "You guys" lumps me in with views that I may or may not share. The IL-2 fix is due, just want to keep it in HTC's view. With the accurizing of the Wirbelwind, it's nemesis and chief antagonist should get the same accurizing treatment.
:salute
Way
I am being fair. You got reactions from Hitech himself in this thread and still you drag it back up. Why?
The WW simply got its turret tarverse slowed down. Its still just as accurate and its ROF hasnt changed. Last time I checked the IL2 didnt have a turret. For that matter what does the WW have to do with the IL2 anyways?
To much drama pal. If you deaccurize the IL2 then you can deaccurize every plane and vehicle in the game. Most of all your Shermans which can kill at obscene distances in AH that they couldnt in real life.
Cause they plain werent that accurate. :huh
-
Waystin, if you can improve on the arguments I deployed here http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,272550.msg3417261.html#msg3417261 then have it. I felt like I was soundly defeated.
-
And let's conveniently ignore the fact that besides the tremendous amount of recoil that prevented firing more than a few shells in succession (with any accuracy), the 37mm cannon on the Il-2 were found to jam so frequently as to make the 23mm armament preferable. :P
Only in AH do mediocre weapons that never attained more than marginal success get turned into ubiquitous uber-weapons. :lol
I will reserach it Gavagai. It was a fact that the Russian Pilots preferred the 23 mm gun set to the 37 mm for several reasons. Instabilitties in flight and unsychronized guns were the reasons that I remember. I must say that there is little chance of Hitech changing it because of jams, this would open a pandoras box on a whole slew of planes.
BombRich, in no way did Hitech shoot down my request. He instead shot down the ludicrous lines of thought put forward by others. I look forward to the accurization of the IL-2.
-
Let all who have ears hear...HTC does grant well researched wishes!
Fixed in latest patch...
Il-2 37mm cannons are no longer synced together.
:salute
Way
-
Cool huh :)
-
So when are you going to start asking to fix the ROF on the WW? :noid
-
Between the wirby's 3000 round sustained fire without reload or threat of jamming (that includes the Osty and M16), the IL-2's laser AP cannons (37mm), and a host of other direct fire issues in this "sim", it shows that there are vehicles and systems being released into this "sim" that are not being fully researched or tested correctly.
Yeager is correct to a certain extent, but having gross misinterpretations and implementations of weapons systems and their ability to perform far beyond the capabilities both historically and realistically is a travesty. It does nothing but take away from the "sim" aspect and point it towards a X-Box game. I'd like to believe that HTC would rather have a more fine tuned following bent on enjoying a realistic sim vs a horde or kids/summer game players looking for a quick game rush for the summer.
I hope, I sincerely hope that HTC is able to grasp historical fact and get it implemented into the IL-2, the wirblewind, and the other uber-vehicles in the game.
Look at it this way; you up an Ostwind to defend a base. The first thing the attackers do is knock down the hangars with a rush of buffs. You rush to the town to defend the maproom. This all takes, say ten minutes. You now are the last line of defence for your field. A plane is coming over you at that perfect angle...you line up your shot and pull the trigger. The first round flies between his wing and horizontal stab. Your cannon jams and you are immediate fodder for every aircraft around you, one of which strafes your turret gunner and your time is wasted for nothing but a cannon jam. Would you be happy with that?
Better yet, if it were applied in one area, it would have to apply to others. Guns that were inverted jammed VERY often. If you flew a plane out and took an inopportune shot at an aircraft that caused you to go 0g or even into the negative and most/all of your guns jammed, would you be a happy player?
Also, "random failures" have been left out of this game on purpose. The goal is that everything is fair; if you up a Wirble, you get a Wirble. If you up an A-20, you get an A-20. Not half of one.
-
BombRich, in no way did Hitech shoot down my request. He instead shot down the ludicrous lines of thought put forward by others. I look forward to the accurization of the IL-2.
Meanwhile, back in the flight sim, the tank crowd celebrates a win.
(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/Gay_Tank-2-waaa-2.jpg)
-
Meanwhile, back in his own little world, Rich46yo continues to believe Aces High is a flight sim.
-
Rich, that is a great example of the immature invective of which you are so fond. You can advocate for your favorite plane and point of view adequately without it.
Do a search on "appeal to ridicule," and "ad hominem."
-
IL-2 flight disruption when using the 37mm Wish thread coming to a forum near you in the next few days. :aok
-
wtg Way,
Hey can your argue for more Jap planes for me HTC seems to like you :D :salute
-
IL-2 flight disruption when using the 37mm Wish thread coming to a forum near you in the next few days. :aok
Right after the, "Sherman is a large caliber Ostie" thread. Honestly. You tank types want it all. You dont want airplanes killing you, around air bases in a flight sim, :huh. You dont want them to be able to upp right away, after you have shot them with your tank cannon, :huh. You dont want them to be able to see you. You dont want any of them to have F3. You dont want their guns synchronized. You want them to jam. :huh You want the guns to mess up the flight model, :huh "even tho no other plane or vehicle has same", :huh. You want ords to be perked. :huh Or the plane itself to be perked. :huh Or the plane when it has the big guns to be perked. :huh And with all this Historical accuracy about planes that are killing you you still want to be able to motor anywheres you want, alone, with nobody messing with you. :huh
As if that ever happened in the war. As if a airplane going into an enemy field alone has much of a chance. :huh
And you'll keep sniveling, and whining, and complaining, until you get what you want. Which is basically a Tank sim with airplanes that cant harm you. Or that you can limit by going on one suicide Typhie run.
Then we have Gaaa-gaaa-gaaaa-Gavagai. He doesnt tank, doesnt GV, doesnt IL2, and doesnt even run into IL2s much. So you tell me what hes about. A troll maybe?
This kinda whine here http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,274228.0.html sort of sums up the kinda preemadonna attitude GV'ers have in this game. Boy, to think sombody would actually post that.
-
Right after the, "Sherman is a large caliber Ostie" thread. Honestly. You tank types want it all. You dont want airplanes killing you, around air bases in a flight sim, :huh. You dont want them to be able to upp right away, after you have shot them with your tank cannon, :huh. You dont want them to be able to see you. You dont want any of them to have F3. You dont want their guns synchronized. You want them to jam. :huh You want the guns to mess up the flight model, :huh "even tho no other plane or vehicle has same", :huh. You want ords to be perked. :huh Or the plane itself to be perked. :huh Or the plane when it has the big guns to be perked. :huh And with all this Historical accuracy about planes that are killing you you still want to be able to motor anywheres you want, alone, with nobody messing with you. :huh
As if that ever happened in the war. As if a airplane going into an enemy field alone has much of a chance. :huh
And you'll keep sniveling, and whining, and complaining, until you get what you want. Which is basically a Tank sim with airplanes that cant harm you. Or that you can limit by going on one suicide Typhie run.
Then we have Gaaa-gaaa-gaaaa-Gavagai. He doesnt tank, doesnt GV, doesnt IL2, and doesnt even run into IL2s much. So you tell me what hes about. A troll maybe?
This kinda whine here http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,274228.0.html sort of sums up the kinda preemadonna attitude GV'ers have in this game. Boy, to think sombody would actually post that.
Funny Waystin hasnt whined once, your the one whining kid. Does it really matter the il2 got nerfed a bit? Seems like it meant way too much to you.
-
Funny Waystin hasnt whined once, your the one whining kid. Does it really matter the il2 got nerfed a bit? Seems like it meant way too much to you.
Well, at least joining the Army got him away from Mommie. I'll give him that much.
For the 15'th freaking time, Im not talking specifically about Waystin. And, The IL2 did not get nerfed!
You had more sense back when you were taking your pie-eyed pics Laddie.
-
Oh yes, start trying to save yourself through insulting others even deeper than you have been.
-
Oh yes, start trying to save yourself through insulting others even deeper than you have been.
Save myself from whom? What does that have to do with the IL2? Why are you here?
-
amazing how they whine about historical accuracy when it comes to GVs but as soon as you mention a plane lookout........... cant be having them touched......... historical accuracy goes out the window then? :huh
-
Wel....the IL-2's 37's arent synched any more....are you all happy now?
-
Why are you here?
I'd like to ask you the same question, ye whose biggest contribution has been a picture of a pink AFV after ONE post that had a tiny bit of merit. Otherwise you've been calling everyone who disagrees with you a baby, insulting them, and picking fights.
-
I am being fair. You got reactions from Hitech himself in this thread and still you drag it back up. Why?
The WW simply got its turret tarverse slowed down. Its still just as accurate and its ROF hasnt changed. Last time I checked the IL2 didnt have a turret. For that matter what does the WW have to do with the IL2 anyways?
To much drama pal. If you deaccurize the IL2 then you can deaccurize every plane and vehicle in the game. Most of all your Shermans which can kill at obscene distances in AH that they couldnt in real life.
Cause they plain werent that accurate. :huh
Funny you definately were talking about Way here even though hitech kinda complimented him, Waystin bumped this thread just like people keep bumping the 30mm thread so that the problems they see in the game get fixed. Now as for insulting me about how I act in a game or on its bbs is just funny and none of your business, dont see me saying anything about anyones real life, your real mature fool
-
You guys are getting "bombsnatch" all worked up :aok
WTG :salute
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl