Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Raubvogel on March 15, 2001, 03:47:00 PM
-
Ok, after missing the broadside of a barn one too many times, I decided to do a little test on the dora guns. What I found is that not only the MG151, but the MG131s disperse much more than they probably should. I took a 190D9 with both banks set to 400 convergence. I fired each set separately and recorded the width of the tracer path from max zoom out of external view. Then, I took a 190A8 with the exact same weapons and convergence and did the same. The results were pretty eye-opening and should be looked into ASAP.
Fw190D-9 Cowl guns:
(http://content.communities.msn.com/isapi/fetch.dll?action=view_photo&ID_Community=Raubspics&ID_Topic=2&ID_Message=36)
Fw190D-9 MG151/20 (http://content.communities.msn.com/isapi/fetch.dll?action=view_photo&ID_Community=Raubspics&ID_Topic=2&ID_Message=37)
Fw190A-8 Cowl guns (http://content.communities.msn.com/isapi/fetch.dll?action=view_photo&ID_Community=Raubspics&ID_Topic=2&ID_Message=34)
Fw190A-8 MG151/20 (http://content.communities.msn.com/isapi/fetch.dll?action=view_photo&ID_Community=Raubspics&ID_Topic=2&ID_Message=33)
As you can see, with the exact same weapon setup the dispersion varies greatly.
------------------
Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerrkorps.com)
[This message has been edited by Raubvogel (edited 03-15-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Raubvogel (edited 03-15-2001).]
-
WTG!
------------------
(http://content.communities.msn.com/isapi/fetch.dll?action=MyPhotos_GetPubPhoto&photoId=nHwD6d2UI0WPm3EKCGQao7Vbmz7!8nmLzbIouQuC7ssdQWFI6ZzY!jZux2mB9GWIG)
[This message has been edited by brady (edited 03-15-2001).]
-
No wonder normally lethal passes end up not killing an enemy (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Wonder how it was in real life?
------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://stsanta.tripod.com/stSanta.jpg)
"Live to pull, pull to live"
-
So, definitely it was NOT my shooting (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I knew something was wrong with the dora's guns, couldnt be I was missing 50 yards deflection shots all day long (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
I got the impression from things I've read that the Dora was a very good gun platform... something not illustrated by these screens.
-
Hmm - that does not explain my tendency to die - but my tendency to not kill with otherwise 100% lethal shots... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
And here I was thinking that I didn't think the MG151/20s would be that much harder to hit with after getting used to my Spitfire's Hispano MkIIs and my Zero's Type 99 MkIIs. It took me a whole load of ammo, using 248 rounds from each gun to shoot down 1 Fw190F-8 in the worst case I had.
WTG Raubvogel, nice work. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother
Bring the Spitfire F.MkXIVc to Aces High!!!
Sisu
-Karnak
-
WTG Raub, I don't use tracers, so I never noticed any change in dispersion.
-
I tried to do that offline and I couldent..what conversion settings were you using?
When I tried it they fire as normal ???
-
Read my first post Wobble.
-
BTW - You draw like chit.
-
I believe your mistaken.
Your dora shots are taken at a shallower angle then the A8 shots. As you approach the cone of fire the spread is greatly exagurated. I just did this with both planes and I have a healthy steam of concentrated fire with both.
The D9 seems to shoot just like a 2 cannon a8 to me so that is not suprising.
-
Pongo wrote:
Your dora shots are taken at a shallower angle then the A8 shots.
Actually, I think you are mistaken - it appears that he has taken the screenshots from the same angle in all pics - and why would he do other wise?
-
to back up that claim a bit...
his aircraft is the same distance from the text buffer in all shots. At a different angle, the distance would vary.
-
Well, I guesstimated the angle using the shadow under the plane. Looks pretty close to me. It might be a degree or 2 off, but I'm not sure that would toatlly account for the big difference. I did this test 3 times just to make sure it wasn't explained by something like that.
-
Typical.
-
Well, I dunno....
I just saved the D9 image of the cannons, and the A8 image of the cannons then pasted the A8 image into the D9 image so I could see both planes side by side.
You are definately on target with the distance from the planes.... but I don't think that the Dora sits much higher on the ground than the A8. In fact I'm almost positive they have the same landing gear structure.
Anyways, when I pasted the A8 next to the D9 I found out something peculiar... that being the D9 shot gives you a view as if you were watching the plane in level flight from directly in front of it. In other words, it's facing directly at your point of view, and you can't see the rear fuselage structure at all.
BUT in the case of the A8, you CAN see the tail and a bit behind the canopy sitting behind the plane.
What does this mean? In the D9 photo you are firing almost directly at the screen, in the A8 photo you are firing much lower.
Hence, as stated before, this gives you a percieved vast difference in dispersion.
Don't believe me? If I could find a place to host the A8 pasted into the D9 photo I would... but geoshitties doesn't let you link images to be viewed unless it's linked from a homepage in their site, and MSN communities is a lost cause.
Someone else want to host it? Hell you can do it on your own... just make sure you line up the top of the chat bar.
-SW
-
I just ran some tests myself, and I have to say that it looks like Pongo is correct.
Just slight variations in altitude result in tremendous apparent differences that are not actually there.
To run this test properly the aircraft would need to be positioned so that the viewer can be placed at a fixed location. E.g. the aircraft is at the end of a run way and the viewer is positioned on the surface of a hill. Even this test will still be subject to the vagaries of the upward angle that the parked aircraft imparts to its guns, e.g. a parked P-38 will fire at a much flatter trajectory than will a parked P-51.
------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother
Bring the Spitfire F.MkXIVc to Aces High!!!
Sisu
-Karnak
-
This is why I never test anything. I still say something is screwy, but there's not really anyway to prove it unless I get a terrain with a vertical wall and a range finder.
-
Raub, are you saying that what I'm seeing I never should of brought up?
What good is a test if it's inaccurate? Believe me, I would scrutinize my own stuff to make sure I didn't make a booboo somewhere.
You can clearly see more of the aft section of the 190A8 than the D9, which in turn says that the test is false because that means the angles aren't correct from the aircraft to the viewpoint.
-SW
-
SeaWulfe, why don't you pull the stick out of your ass. Why are you guys so defensive? Why does everything always have to be about you? You and your buddie DejaVu have some sort of persecution complex, thinking that everything is directed towards you. Get over yourself.
I was trying to say that I never run tests, because I can never come up with definitive answers. I couldn't figure out how to do it without any variables. That was the best I could come up with.
[This message has been edited by Raubvogel (edited 03-15-2001).]
-
Seawulfe - you and Deja need to start a new club.
Call it "the we are mad club."
Or better yet, "the are mad, and we didn't read the posts before we starting acting imperious club"
2x in the past 2 days I have seen one of you try and squeak raub out for agreeing with you.
That said:
I thought about what was posted, and I think you have a point, but I find the screens odd. Here's why:
The dora has a longer tail section. Given the same height in landing gear, this would make the angle between the ground and the gun flight path smaller than on the A8. This is simple geometry. Then I checked a book, and the A8, at 3.96m, is actually noted to be taller than the Dora at 3.36m, which would increase this effect even more.
This would make the dora shoot further under the camera, and decrease the impression of dispersion, while the A8 would be shooting more directly at the camera and enhancing the effect.
In these screenshots, the exact opposite is happening, which is very odd. You could factor in the angle of the ground, except that the camera view is based on the aircraft in relation to itself - not in relation to the ground...
So...
I'd say we need to test some more.
Perhaps some films of the two aircraft in level flight firing their guns, which could then be paused and viewed from different angles are in order.
-
Kratzer.
You might as well ask.
Why would someone make a mistake?
The end of the shadow is visible under the D9 but not the A8. As the nose of the D9 is longer(tail length would seem irellevent to me) It would seem more likely that the end of the shadow would be more visible under the a8.
Its easy guys. take a long external rear view of both planes in the TA and blaze away. The rounds never leave the bounds of the original dispertion of the weapons on the AC. If they did it would only be at over twice convergance. So the real puzzle is why is that screen shot wrong.
I could only make the spread look like that by approaching the boresight of the weapons. So I looked again and thats what the poster did as well.
I did test this by making a film and viewing it from different angles.
Refuting your dispertion claim does not mean that the dora does not shoot low though. I dont notice that it does but I adjust my head position in every ac.
-
Originally posted by Pongo:
So the real puzzle is why is that screen shot wrong.
My point exactly.
As to why the length of the tail section of the fuselage matters, it is because it places the tail wheel further from the front wheels, which decreases the angle from the ground of the fuselage overall.
-
A surefire way to do this test is to use the F5 view angle and zoom in or out so you can get what you need. Then just use the view keys to pick a viewing angle and have at it. I'll check this later tonight or tomorrow and post pics. If someone else wants to back me up with this by doing the same thing, by all means do so. It sure beats trying to figure out a .0000071 degree pitch change in pics.
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta 6's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
Put the P-61B in Aces High
"With all due respect Chaplian, I don't think God wants to hear from me right now.
I'm gonna go out there and remove one of His creations from this universe.
And when I get back I'm gonna drink a bottle of Scotch like it was Chiggy von
Richthofen's blood and celebrate his death."
Col. McQueen, Space: Above and Beyond
(http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/htbin/delta6.jpg)
-
F3 view -> zoom out fully, press and hold 2 on the keypad, then fire away. A-5, A-8, F-8 and D-9 all look the same to me.
-
Another way to test it is from the inside. Set convergence of both planes to the same distance, preferably the longest distance possible. Then fire the weapons of one aircraft, and from the cockpit view physically mark the boundary of the bullet/cannon groupings on your screen. Next, do the same with the other aircraft, and observe if the grouping stays within the other aircraft's boundaries.
-
I didn't see much difference with those..
but those lasers in P-51...
does those things disperse at all?
Mg131 sprays whole sky full of lead like a cheap Uzi.
[This message has been edited by Fishu (edited 03-16-2001).]
-
Hey... I have a question? This whole thing is based on the "pixels" your seeing. How do we know that the graphics you see in game actually even relate to whats happening in the data? I havent played for long but it seems the eye candy doesent really need to always relate to the actual data/guts of the game....?
batdog
P.S. The test seemed okay to me. Its certianly not perfect as in taken from the perfect angle each time but it gives you a general sight of what is happening it seems. This seems to go with peoples personal experience with the plane as well?
-
Originally posted by batdog:
Hey... I have a question? This whole thing is based on the "pixels" your seeing. How do we know that the graphics you see in game actually even relate to whats happening in the data? I havent played for long but it seems the eye candy doesent really need to always relate to the actual data/guts of the game....?
batdog
P.S. The test seemed okay to me. Its certianly not perfect as in taken from the perfect angle each time but it gives you a general sight of what is happening it seems. This seems to go with peoples personal experience with the plane as well?
try shooting some level flying plane next time from 400 yards so that convergence meets at the target.
you will see hit spires all over.
-
I tried everything shooting high and shooting low and even in hte middle. At 400+ you cant hit crap with teh 109's guns or FW's, cept the A8. I agree with Raub the guns are fubar. The only one with which I can have any kind of success is the F4. But a lot of times it is just guessing where they are going to drop off to. One other thing do the 131's seem to fire a lil slower then they should?
-
"I am mad club" or "stick up my ass" doesn't exist.
Do I need to place smileys in my post to transfer my current state of mind when I post? I wasn't "mad" or having a fit of "persecution complex". Nothing was about me, the test was clearly inaccurate and therefore what it wasn't showing anything was wrong.
Raub came back and stated "see this is why I never test anything...", that sure seemed to me like "Hey, I don't test anything because there's too many people here that will prove it wrong."
If it's wrong, it's wrong. Am I right or am I wrong?
If you two think I was posting in angst, I wasn't. Perhaps you two need a "chill pill".
-SW
-
Fishu, I wish I could. Nobody seems to be willing to fly real streight and level for me. Anybody willing to "volunteer" please let me know. I need all the help I can get. Oh...WHERE should my convergence be set?
Batdog
-
Testing is good. However, that particular one is very easily influenced by the placement of the camera.
We need to come up with some other way to test this, possibly by finding some hangar or something that is a specific distance from a marked position. Hmmm. I'll poke around in the TA this weekend and see if I can't come up with something. Still, it's going to be very difficult to take minimize the camera position's effect on the results.
------------------
Sean "Lephturn" Conrad - Aces High Chief Trainer
A proud member of the mighty Flying Pigs
http://www.flyingpigs.com
Check out Lephturn's Aerodrome (http://users.andara.com/~sconrad/) for AH articles and training info!
-
The whole purpose of the "Scientific Method", where you establish a testing method, conduct the test, and publish your results for peer review, is so any potential errors are found and can be discussed.
If an error is found, then the so called "proof", isn't really "proof", and you have to go back to the drawing board. It doesn't mean you're theory was necessarily wrong, it just means that the data isn't valid.
In other words, this is the whole reason we discuss this issues. Don't get upset if someone doesn't agree with your test method.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
here's the answer:
http://www2.wi.net/~rkurer/mrmagoo2.ram (http://www2.wi.net/~rkurer/mrmagoo2.ram)
think you guys are a little tight about this game in general.
Must be nice to have a life which a MAJOR concern is the dispersion and subsequent argument of a gun in a online GAME (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Eagler
-
Originally posted by Eagler:
Must be nice to have a life which a MAJOR concern is the dispersion and subsequent argument of a gun in a online GAME (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Eagler
Hey, my wife is out of town for the next few days... this is my ONLY concern!
-
This is not a flame, I am wondering:
It looks like only the convergence/divergence of the tracers is being tested here. That makes the assumption that the rest of the shells are following the same paths. Are there any tests or methods for seeing where all of the shells hit at the harmonization range where the test is repeatable from plane to plane?
MiG
-
Not unless they model a jack so we can level the plane on the ground and shoot it at a target.
-
You guys shoot at things that are more than 300yds away?
WOW! What a concept =)
Maybe I've been flying the Yak-9U for too long...
------------------
Graywolfe <tim@flibble.org>