Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Naudet on April 06, 2001, 07:30:00 AM
-
Now after weeks of learning E management, i finally got the time to test the different planes a bit.
And i really was amazed how easy it is with most planes to score hits beyond 500 yrds.
Than i went back to my D9 and yet i noticed a real big difference (which Mandoble always recognized) in gun accuracy. It is really weird how close u have to get to score a few hits with the D9 guns.
I than went offline and did a bit air to air testing with the drones.
1st i choosed a P51, convergence 300 yards. Right from the beginning i was easily getting hits at distances of 700 yards, i did not even have to use great vertikal deflection, i would even say, it was enough to keep the center of the gunsight on same level as tgt, and i score hits up to 750 yards.
I than switched to D9, convergence 300 yrds as in P51, and there was a huge difference, i had to tried many time till i finally got any hits with the D9 at 650-700 yrads, i had to give plenty of vertikal deflection to avoid the bullets dropping short.
I than started to test accuracy at convergence setting. The D9 guns scattered the hit over at least half the drones, most time over the complete drone at convergence range.
I hoped back in P51 and did some more testing, now with the knowledge of the 2 previous test, i score hits a 1100 yards!!! (convergence was still 300 yrds) when closing to convergence all bullets hit the same area of the tgt, i.e. i tgted for the left elevator/stabilizer, and the from the short burst i got a massive hit only on this one part of the plane, no scattering nothing.
I think it is really time to overhaul the the D9 gun model.
Ge guns are a bit worse than 0.5 cals, but they never ever had only about half the effective range nor about 3-4 times the bullet drop they have now.
-
*rewinds the tape of earlier conversations*
*play*
"yaddayadda blah blah .. better trajectory .. yaddayadda blah .. better velocity .. moanmoan blah .. superior bullet characteristics .. blahblah .."
*stop*
i dont even mind to find the tape about hispano.
-
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Naudet wrote:
Ge guns are a bit worse than 0.5 cals, but they never ever had only about half the effective range nor about 3-4 times the bullet drop....
Mg151 rounds are much slower than .50 rounds and have worse ballistic characteristics. Shooting at a target about 500 meters away at sea level, 151 rounds will have about 3 times the bullet drop of a .50 before they get to the target.
Hooligan
-
What seemed to help my gunnery in the D-9 was setting the cannon to a 450 convergence and the machineguns to a 250 convergence.
I may have the exact numbers wrong, I will update them when I get home if I remember.
------------------
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
-
I do not compare D9 with anything but A8 and A5. Hitting with D9 was (is) almost impossible, for me, further than 250 yards. Into 250 yards range I can hit, but expending a lot of ammo. Now I'm back to 190A5 and A8 to be able to hit with precission withing 250 yards range.
I did some tests with D9 offline, 300 cnv and about 300 mph level flight, max zoom and firing bullet by bullet. The conclusion was that dispersion is tremendous and, IMO, erratic (I was unable to put a single bullet passing the exact center of the gunsight). As I said before, any of you can do that simple test and take his own conclusions.
-
I flew pretty much nothing but the Dora in Tour 14. Decided to hop into the G10 this tour. It's easier to make deflection shots with 30mm in G10 than with 20mm in Dora. That just doesn't seem right. No hard data, just doesn't seem like it should be like that.
------------------
Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
-
I have shelved the Dora, because shooting in it is to be honest a pain in hte arse. This is my favroite plane of all time and I don't even fly it. I am sorry but when you see the kills it gets it is from HO's or getting behind someone that doesn't know you are there.
------------------
Sturm6 StaffelKapitän
JV44 Platzschutzstaffel
Airfield Defense Squadron
-
Originally posted by Raubvogel:
It's easier to make deflection shots with 30mm in G10 than with 20mm in Dora. That just doesn't seem right. No hard data, just doesn't seem like it should be like that.
Accurate deflection shooting depends on the time of flight of the projectile, which basically means muzzle velocity. So you're right, any 20mm should be easier to hit with than the low-velocity MK 108.
Tony Williams
Author: Rapid Fire - The Development of Automatic Cannon, Heavy Machine Guns and their Ammunition for Armies, Navies and Air Forces.
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/ (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/)
-
I tend to agree that the guns on the Dora are tough to kill with. After spending time in it, I have become used to it and am able to adjust to it now. I don't know if they are screwed or not, as I am anything but an expert on German (not to mention any other country's...) guns. Oh well, I will just sit back and enjoy my new favorite ride in AH. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-math
------------------
"Any American fighter near Orote Penninsula. I have forty Jap planes surrounded and need a little help."
-Ens. W.B. "Spider" Webb during the Marians Turkey Shoot
-
Now i am totaly sure that something is wrong with the D9 guns.
In this tour about 20-25 kills were lost for me due to the crapy D9 toy guns.
for those that need a bit here are a few examples:
1 spit, 1 niki, 1 F4U as tgt, all fired at from distances below 50 yrds, full power hits, they flew right through my bullets, they really were enlighted by the pings, result: spit flew on without visible dmg, same with the niki, F4U lost one flap,
other examples: Spit at 350 yrds, flying straigt and level, used 60% of my ammo, result on spit 1 lost flap and aileron, total hits on spit about 4
Not to mention, that the forward view in the FW 190 (all models) is crap to, RAF test pilots stated that FW190 had better view than Spit, in AH, no way, FW has worst forward view, especially with the 13mm cooling guns, view should be much better cause FW190 flew 5 degree nose down to maitain level flight, and guns are pointet on level, not in plane long axis.
The GE guns of the D9 miss punch and accuracy, which makes the D9 a nearly useless plane, and for all those that still dont believe, last example, i hit a 109er at 300 yrds (my convergence range) and bullets sprayed from one wingtip to the other wingtip!!!!
Thats a separation of 10-12 yrds, for the D9 there is one thing u can do to improve accuracy, pray for every bullet
[This message has been edited by Naudet (edited 04-10-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Naudet (edited 04-10-2001).]
-
i think i just killed spit with hispano from 1200yards (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Still i have hard time hitting at 350yards in 190s
-
first off, the 151/20 is not even close ballistically to the hispano or the browning 50 cal. Much less velocity.
I flew a dora for this past weekends snapshot, first time in the thing really and got a 6 kill sortie. I see nothing wrong with the dora's guns at all. Its has more hitting power round for round ove teh 50's in my P-47.
ammo
-
Now that they have their D-9, F-8, and 152, they needed to think of something else to complain about.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) (all in good humor)
J_A_B
-
Not this again...
Data, charts, real tests against real world data.. you know that kind of thing might actually put some water in your glass.
Until then, you are just wasting your time.
-SW
-
Originally posted by -ammo-:
I flew a dora for this past weekends snapshot, first time in the thing really and got a 6 kill sortie. I see nothing wrong with the dora's guns at all. Its has more hitting power round for round ove teh 50's in my P-47.
ammo
Hey Raub, Reshke, Grunherz.. you guys paying attention here?
Ammo is posting how well he's doing in the plane and I don't see you jumping all over him for that.
-SW
-
Ya know if it looks like crap and smells like crap thats good enough for me, but I suppose there are some who aren't satisfied until they taste it to be sure eh?
-
Originally posted by BigJoe:
Ya know if it looks like crap and smells like crap thats good enough for me, but I suppose there are some who aren't satisfied until they taste it to be sure eh?
I tasted the D9's gunnery... 6 kills in a single flight at dusk. You telling me they are porked, I'm telling you they ain't.
-SW
-
Number of kills doesn't desmostrate anything.
-
wanna see the film?
-
'Data, charts, real tests against real world data.. you know that kind of thing might actually put some water in your glass.'
Ya know everytime this subject is brought up you have to remember it is a CUSTOMER who has a concern. This time it is a person who based on his past experience believes there may be a problem. Unfortunately there's always someone proclaiming "you must have tests results, real world data, perform those experiments, more test data and comparisons, let see it on paper!" If he doesn't, is it supposed to make his concerns invalid? Many people don't have the slightest idea where to look for this data or have the time, for many all there is this forum to voice concerns.
----------
'I'm telling you they ain't'
Where's the the test data for that statement?
[This message has been edited by BigJoe (edited 04-10-2001).]
-
Bigjoe:
If you spend a little time searching this board you can find a post for any particular weapon or aircraft that has some player complaining that the gun/aircraft modelling in question is seriously defective. When actual proof rather than just "feelings" is presented (as was the case with the N1K1 ammo load for example) the problems tend to get rapidly fixed. However if no proof can be presented then its just one player's "feelings" that it is wrong contrasted with another's "feelings" that it is right.
Hooligan
-
And I also might add to Hooligans statements to BigJoe, Ever heard of "the little boy who cried wolf?"
Sorry to say it, but the Luftwaffe contingent on this BBS is the first and loudest to complain about any perceived {and I stress perceived} problem with their aircraft. Unfortunately many of these complaints were later shown to be totally unfounded, or downright inaccurate.
So after a while, we get immune to it, and pretty much ignore it.
Its too the point now that before we come running, we want the little boy (ie the Luftwaffels) to SHOW us that there is a wolf (a problem) before us villagers come running.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
Prove it to who? this isn't your game you are not getting anyones money and if there was a problem there is nothing you could do to correct it. So why does anyone have to 'prove' it to another customer? I would've thought this board was developed by HTC to afford people the place to state their observations no matter how insignificant they seem to anyone else. Let me ask I am too assume that unless someone with a problem has absolute proof (data, charts, numbers) nothing is looked at or checked by HTC? If this was your business is that the way you would run it? I surely hope not because thats a good way to lose money. Search the boards you will see HTC does look into these things and I will agree IF the data was provided things may go faster.
LW contingent? what the heck is that the only time I've seen that on this board is when you bring it up. Naudet had a problem and voiced it no mention about allied verses axis powers, Luftwobbles whinners and allied opportunists, or why do they have this and we don't. At least not until someone else brought it up.
[This message has been edited by BigJoe (edited 04-11-2001).]
-
Verm, I suggest you to test these guns before thinking all of us are mad. Easy to do, landed, max zoom, default gunsight, conv 300 and firing bullet by bullet. Repeat the test with 190A5/A8/F8 2x20mm and let us know if all you see is "normal".
-
BigJoe, no you don't have to prove it too me, but don't expect community support without any kind of evidence. So just prove it to HTC then. And no, they don't usually "fix things" unless there is some kind of proof that something is wrong. And let me clue you that Pyro has a much higher standard of proof, than many of the other players here or myself have.
Mandoble, wasn't that already debated not just two weeks ago here, and it was pointed out that the test was invalid because of the way it was conducted?
Nothing personal, but I'm not going to spend a whole lot of my time, doing flight tests on planes that to me seem just fine.
I'm not saying there IS or IS NOT a problem, I'm just saying that I don't see or experience it.
Therefore, I will continue to be extremely skeptical until someone comes forward with some kind of real proof, not just "feelings and impressions".
Sorry but the Luftwaffles as a group have dug their own graves on this one, with their constant whines and baseless complaints.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
I agree with Verm. If you can prove that somehting is wrong, post it in here for all of us to see, not just say this and that is wrong.
mx22
-
The test that was conducted some time ago was done by looking at the plane from external view.
Looking through the gunsight and observing the tracer spread is as far as I can think a good way to figure out how much the shots spread on different planes. Such a test was done by someone even longer ago and was posted on the UBB. It had a lot of pictures with approximated circles drawn on screenshots of the zoomed in reticle. Can't remember who did it though.
------------------
---
SageFIN
"I think I´ll believe in Gosh instead of God. If you don´t
believe in Gosh too, you´ll be darned to heck."
---
-
If you go back to that thread, you'll read why that test couldn't prove anything...
mx22
Originally posted by SageFIN:
The test that was conducted some time ago was done by looking at the plane from external view.
Looking through the gunsight and observing the tracer spread is as far as I can think a good way to figure out how much the shots spread on different planes. Such a test was done by someone even longer ago and was posted on the UBB. It had a lot of pictures with approximated circles drawn on screenshots of the zoomed in reticle. Can't remember who did it though.
-
I flew a dora for this past weekends snapshot, first time in the thing really and got a 6 kill sortie. I see nothing wrong with the dora's guns at all. Its has more hitting power round for round ove teh 50's in my P-47.
Yeah, i also flew sorties with 5-6 kills, but they were very rare, and all kills were done inside 300 yrds, on a tgt that i bounced in furballs.
I fly the Dora now nearly 6 weeks, and since i learned E management and all this the gun problem showed up, look into mandobles previous posts, i always was one thinking everythin right with D9 guns. But now that i can fly this bird much better the weakness of the guns are obivious. Especially the dispersion of the 20mms.
Compared to the 13mms in the D9, i am not really comparing anything to this lasercannons like the hispano, the .5 cal or the 20mms on the chog.
The prob with the D9 guns is, that the cannons are nearly useless, especially at deflection shoots. I land hits with the 13mm but the 20 misses totaly. And that aint right, u ask why, cause MG131 and MG151/20 had nearly the same balistic data, thats why they were the ideal solution to arm GE fighters with, u want hard data, here u get it:
MG131
cal: 13mm
length: 1168 mm
weight: 20,5 kg
ROF: 930 rounds per min
muzzle velocity: 750 m/s
MG151/20
cal: 20mm
length:1710mm
weight: 42,5kg
ROF: 780-800 unsyc, 550-750 syc
muzzle velocity: 790 m/s
here u can see the MG151 also has the better balistic characteristics, and now go into AH and try it with D9, the MG151 will go anywere, but not throught the crosshairs.
If i set con in P51 to 300, and shoot, the guns really merge there and do harm.
Same on D9 results in very funny hits on enemies. Its impressive when u shoot ur tgt both wingtips away at convergence range.
-
Sorry Naudet, but your entirely wrong.
Just because the MG131 and MG151/20 have similar muzzle velocities, does not mean they have similar ballistic characteristics. The mass of the round, and the ballistic coefficent play very large roles as well.
If your firing both the MG's and the cannons in a deflection shot, and your hitting with the MG's but not the cannons, its because you are visually cueing off (aiming from) the tracers off the MG's which is exactly NOT how to do it.
Here is a chart from the Fw190A8 handbook, which will show you how very different the ballistic characteristics between the MG131 and the MG151/20 really are.
(http://www.vermin.net/fw190/190-gun-3.jpg)
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
I dont use tracers, they more block view than everything else.
And plz show me a diagramm were both guns MG151 and MG131 are fired at the same distance, best even from same position.
From the data in u sheet u really cant tell that the ballistics of both guns are very diverent, u even can compare em on this data.
Data to compare ballistics best, is a diagramm, showing the flight path of the shells according to same firing angle and distance. As long as both things are different, u cant compare em.
U diagramm provides totaly different distances and firing angles for both guns.
-
Naudet, that diagram is the actual setup on the aircraft which is what counts. In other words it represents the ballistic flight path of the projectiles as they are used in a Fw190A8 or Fw190D9.
The MG131 is mounted in the nose, while the MG151/20's are mounted in the wingroots, a vertical difference of almost 1.2 meters. Therefore you have to set the convergence (both horizontal and vertical) to a desired point.
The situation you describe in your post does not exist in a Fw190 of any series. The closest example to what you describe is probably a P-38, where all the guns are mounted clustered tightly together in the nose, both the MG's and the 20mm cannon.
Here are the two complete pages from the manual to describe what I am discussing.
http://www.vermin.net/fw190/190-gun-1.jpg (http://www.vermin.net/fw190/190-gun-1.jpg)
http://www.vermin.net/fw190/190-gun-2.jpg (http://www.vermin.net/fw190/190-gun-2.jpg)
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
Vermillion, i know that this doesnt count for the actual situation in the FWs, but it counts for the normal comparison of the ballistic attributes of the 2 guns.
And i actually can compare the diagram above with my AH setting, cause there the convergence for both guns is the same, in the diagram we have different convergences for both gun types.
I would really like to see one with all weapons set to 300 meters or so.
And one last thing, i did some in arena testing now. I tried to shoot anyone down only with the MG151, can u believe that i missed a YAK at 100 yrds, when he showed a really great tgt area to me.
And notes to the power on the other side, my D9 normally falls apart after a max of 3 pings of any pure gun plane.
But i have to put atleast 6 pings of 20 mms into anything around to do major dmg.
I had NIKI cripling my wing with 1 ping from the real bad Type 99 Cannon, but 3 MG151 didnot do more harm than to let the NIKIs fuel run out. Sry but this to me is crap. I just flew "test" sorties the whole morning. the get the same results time and time again, i did stupid HO just to try put the weapons and as always, enemy flew right through bullet stream without dmg. (BTW i totaly ruined any rank or ratio gained before that way).
I am can live with the flight characteristics of the D9 (even when there are a few things i still find funny, but most might be due to my missing experience with certain E statues etc.), but the guns are really nowhere near any accuracy.
-
Naudet, try to fly the La7 with 2 cannons for a few sorties for comparison purposes. I find the guns in the La7 very similar to the Dora guns.
I havent' flown much this tour due to other commitments, but I did get to fly several Dora sorties in the past couple of days. I made two kills, and I think one assist (or maybe 2), in just a couple of flights.
If I remember right, they're about the only kills I have this tour due to a really bad string of luck in the La7, and my low flight hours.
Both kills were made at 350-450 yards, and a single burst crippled the plane I was shooting at. Sorry but I just don't see the problem your speaking of.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
well it seems no one will be pleased until you drive out the people who like LW planes.
HTC claim it is a game first and foremost so they allow certain aspects(eg bomber gunner range) of the game to be adjusted to suit the gamer.Well i fly LW and so this brands any complaint i have a 'lufftwobble whine' (ever feel like we in a school yard?).
My complaint?
I fly an LW jabo and if im hit by any ack it will kill my engine first shot or take my tail off.The guns are incredibly more difficult to hit with than any other type of cannon(20mms).If my 190 dora has been hit in the radiator and i turn my engine off to try to keep it for a landing it continues to overheat and dies.We get rockets for a2a and they fire BELOW your eye line thus making hitting with them almost impossible and their range 700 yards? (1.7 now?).All these things and many more over the last year, ok so according to all the stuff you guys read this is the way it was but what im saying is this.You need to attract EVERYONE to this game.Those that like the Allied stuff and those that like the Axis stuff.
ALL are customers.
Im a customer who feels something is wrong with the LW planes damage models and guns but im a 'whiner' right?
well im getting tired of this too and tired of having to post proof of everything.Either this is a game or a sim.If im gonna have to fly LW with every problem modeled lovingly while F4uc's with laser cannons and the handling of an arcade game(rudders!) fly in the same arena and kill me often i think im going to get fed up and leave right?
well im nearly there.Dont know what else to say
------------------
Hazed
3./JG2 (http://members.home.net/winyah999/3jg2.htm)
P.S. I have never complained about P51d or b,the b26,the F6F,the TBM,the p38,the p47's or the F4d for that matter.I am not anti- USAAF but it does annoy me when i do something that seems unnaturally easy in an F4uc and evry USAAF fan claims 'thats how it was' 'prove us wrong we have US test flight data'.
why do we bother?
hey im only $360 to HTC a year right? why worry that im unhappy ? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by hazed- (edited 04-17-2001).]
[This message has been edited by hazed- (edited 04-17-2001).]
-
BTW we have been shown that the MG151 had quite a pronounced bullet drop.
OK accepted......
A) Dont you think that the LW engineers would mount the guns, when setting convergence etc, slightly upwards so that the path was more visible? thus making it easier to track a target with the tracer?
In 'view from a cockpit' (adolf galland) it states effective ranges for all the cannons up to BK5 and after a year in here i cant hit with 30mm over 200-300 and in the book its stated 600 yards.(it may have even said meters i cant be sure)
sorry no hard data as to why i cant hit with 30mm at a books stated effective range in AH.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
maybe its almost impossible? well it isnt with hispanos is it? no no no hazed stop this talk ...thats how it was! right? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Im not trying to claim it was easy in RL im sure it wasnt but where can we check this sort of thing? accounts of WW2 pilots? i dont know.But to show a chart of mg151 bullet drop and then ignore any ways the LW engineers would have adjusted them to be more efficient or easier to use?
I really dont know about this but id bet there are ways to make 2 guns with similar effective ranges(hispano/mg151?) but different trajectories converge in the same way whether it be by fireing higher/lower to get same convergence and level.the slower bullet would be fired higher?.
[This message has been edited by hazed- (edited 04-17-2001).]
-
Hazed, the projectiles are running for 650m before dropping below guns level, and getting a max elevation of about 1.5m above guns level. If you scale the graph to the proper proportional X/Y sizes, you'll notice the trayectory is very tense. From 100m to 560m, all the proyectiles should keep clearly visible from the pilot seat.
Anyway, are these graphs based on AP or mine?
-
Well, I was going to write up a big response to all this but its just not worth the waste of the time and effort.
Just two points.
1.) The problems with the ack usually killing the engines, and the way they overheat, is a universal problem. Its not just the luftwaffe.
2.) Before you claim that there is some kind of conspiracy against the MG151, I suggest you fly any of the Russian birds, and try out the ShVak/B20.
Mandoble, I believe the chart lists the ammnition types but it looks to be acronym of the original german, and I don't know german well enough to figure it out.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
Verm:
What is the acronym?
Hooligan
-
*looks up at the chart earlier in the thread*
1= MG 131 (Fuselage), 13mm Spr. Gr Patr. Ub El
2= MG 151/20 2 cm Spr Gr patr Ub 151
The bolded part is the portion that I thought denoted the ammunition type, but I could easily be wrong.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
<PUNT>
-
spreng granat patrone
These are HE (not Mine) rounds.
I am not sure about the Ub El and Ub but it might have something to do with the fusing mechanism.
Jay
-
I do not have any fancy graphs to show, I didn't study aerodynamics and weapon balistics but I speak from my experience in AH.
In the D9 I have a much harder time to hit anything than in the other 190 models. Heck, I couldn't even hit a Spit 150 yards of my nose in more or less level fight. No problem in a A5 to do that!!!
How can it be that so many (dedicated) FW190 drivers report the same problem? Yes Verm, we know you can shoot the eye out of a fly at 1.5 with the D9 - but we can't!! Really wondering...
-
Hehe..in some other sim, not so far away, the LW went when they got AP ammo!
"We want HE ammo!"
Then they got HE ammo and now they go!
"We want AP ammo!!"
Nothing ever changes (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Daff
-
And Kirin, why is it that so many non-dedicated 190 pilots fly the Dora and have no problems what so ever hitting with it?
Strange that only a very small subset of the pilot base experiences what is described as being a "massive" problem.
You would think that logically, if such a problem existed, the non-dedicated pilots would experience the problem to a much greater degree due to their lack of experience with the aircraft type.
But thats not the case.
All I know is that I'm done with the issue.
I bring facts and solid historical information to the discussion, and you guys tell me it "feels" wrong, and its not like you expect it too be. But none of you are willing to do any solid testing, find new information, or anything else at all that may help us solve this problem one way or the other. In other words, you want to complain, but you don't want to do any of the hard work to determine if there really IS a problem or not.
How do I debate or problem solve against someones feelings and impressions? Its impossible.
All I know is that Pyro, is the kind of person to be convinced by solid facts.
So I will shut up, the luftwobble contingent will continue to complain, and the Dora will stay the exact same as it is today. And this will just feed the flames of the constant whines of "Your all just anti-luftwaffe, you pro american opportunist bastards".
So... *whatever* (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
About the 190 pilots - maybe they just have the experience in the other 190 models to notice the difference in the D9! I maybe overshot a bit; I am not saying it's impossible to kill in the D9 but (shooting-wise) much harder than in the other 190 models. Don't get me wrong - the D9 is great plane but there *seems* something different with the gunnery than in the other 190s.
About Pyro - why not the other way around. One little statement like "The gunnery in the D9 is excactly the same as in the other 190s" would be enough to shut up the crowd. Hey, we are the players - we can only state what we observe while playing. HTC are the programmers, they know the numbers and algorithms - they have the facts, present them to us... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by Hooligan:
spreng granat patrone
These are HE (not Mine) rounds.
I am not sure about the Ub El and Ub but it might have something to do with the fusing mechanism.
Jay
In a german original document it rather looks like a "Üb". I think it is a shortcut for "Übung" (exercise, practise)
niklas
-
Verm
"So I will shut up, the luftwobble contingent will continue to complain, and the Dora will stay the exact same as it is today. And this will just feed the flames of the constant whines of "Your all just anti-luftwaffe, you pro american opportunist bastards".
So... *whatever* "
Must be cold up on that russian soap box you whine from you hypocrite. You have insinuated anti russian biases in the past. Whined about the engines and plane choices and guns..
The funny thing is you wont eat crow if Pyro does find some little thing wrong with the mounting of the D9s guns. You will just wait to pounce on the next guy with a concern about something on a non russian plane.
-
Originally posted by Pongo:
Must be cold up on that russian soap box you whine from you hypocrite. You have insinuated anti russian biases in the past. Whined about the engines and plane choices and guns..
The funny thing is you wont eat crow if Pyro does find some little thing wrong with the mounting of the D9s guns. You will just wait to pounce on the next guy with a concern about something on a non russian plane.
What's uber-boring here is the CONTINOUS FLOW of LuftWHINER (tm) Lament.
Play as is and try to have FUN.
I hope we will have one day a Yak3 in the NN colors or an IL-2 but I don't whine each week I trust HTC they know their work (except when they put a Yak9T instead of a Yak9UT (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif))
-
The 151/20 facts in AH:
1 - Poor trajectory.
2 - Very poor rate of fire (synchronized ones).
3 - Big dispersion.
4 - gun vibrations (even more dispersion).
If you mix these ingredients with a bit of lag, the result is clear: you can have a slow B17 crossing in front of you at 200 yards and you'll be unable to score a single hit. If you try the same with 109 3x20 (unsyncrhonized guns), the result is remarkabily different, even with same big dispersion. The difference between sync and unsync 151/20 is noticeable. You can do the next test, pick up 109 1x20 and annotate the time needed to spend the 120 bullets. Now pick up a 190A8 2x20 and annotate the time required to spend 240 bullets.
The big dispersion, vibrations and poor trajectory make the guns innacurate, but ROF could compensate it putting more bullets in the air (109 3x20). In our case (D9), ROF + dispersion = desperation. ROF + dispersion + lag = to become a goon driver.
The above related to the 151/20 in general. Now, about D9 vs A5, supposing nothing has been changed into the guns code, perhaps the behaviour of gun shake is different between both planes, degrading even more the effectivenes of D9 guns.
And a final note about gun vibration. IMO, outer guns should produce much more vibrations than inner ones, and those, more vibrations than centerline one. And there are some guns like the Mk108 that produced almost unnoticeable shake effect. Based on this, vibrations in P51D firing 6 outer MGs should be much more noticeable than firing both inner guns in the D9.
-
I mostly fly the Yak9U. I was under the impression that the Russian guns were rather advanced for their day and had high rates of ile and muzzle velocities, but I haven't done any serious reading on the subject.
I find it just about impossible to hit a non-manuvering 190 at 500yds <waves at Blitz>. So generally I try not to open up at things more than 300yds away, unless the little buggers tempt me by not manuvering (grrrr) =)
Works for me.
Note: This is just an an anecdote I'm not saying wether the D9 has a problem or not. I've only flown it online about three times. I really like 190s but find that they don't suit my flying style =(
------------------
Graywolfe <tim@flibble.org>
-
Originally posted by straffo:
What's uber-boring here is the CONTINOUS FLOW of LuftWHINER (tm) Lament.
Play as is and try to have FUN.
I hope we will have one day a Yak3 in the NN colors or an IL-2 but I don't whine each week I trust HTC they know their work (except when they put a Yak9T instead of a Yak9UT (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif))
Ya thats not whinning. Sorry there is no cute name for soviet whiners...
-
I'll be the first to admit that I don't really know much about balistics but the guns on the dora just don't feel right to me. The problem doesn't manifest itself so much in a dogfight where both parties or twisting and banking but when you're firing at a stationary (relatively) target. A couple weeks back I made a pass on a Lancaster and I didn't make the best approach and ended up sitting on his dead 6 o'clock and fired from d500-d300 or so put the piper square on him right on the body and missed completely. Just don't seem right. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) I dunno, I'll go shutup now (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Originally posted by Pongo:
Ya thats not whinning. Sorry there is no cute name for soviet whiners...
Ok now I'll whinne for real as my LuftWobble master taugh me :
The *** is porked I cannot hit any moving target after 600 yards the damage model of the *** whatever is PORKED each time I'm jaboing presenting the radiator of my plane 1st I end getting shot in the radiator
MY *** IS PORKED!
PYRO HT !
I cannot have the field convertion done by my grant uncle during the war who increased the top speed of the *** by 0,5km/h.
Do I need to start a thread to convince you that the bananaing of the LWhatever is an ecological desease poluting this board !
PERK THE P51D/YAK9U/LA7 BUT DON'T PERK THE D9! it's not fair !
Each time I read a LWobble message it's : whinne whinne whinne whinne ... PORK the TURBO HISPANO LASER
CHog delenda est !
CHog delenda est !
CHog delenda est !
<edit> *** mean neither 109 nor 190
[This message has been edited by straffo (edited 04-19-2001).]
-
Must be good stuff your smokeing there bud.
-
Okay.. so no other LimpWristed buttmonkeys have decided to film there engagements to prove to us that the 190D9's guns are screwy. Instead, I offer a film that the D9's guns are fine (I get 3 legit kills, then a 4th to a collision and I then crash) and it's YOUR AIM that needs work. I miss several snapshots because I over shot or undershoot the target. It's a 1MB film and I'm not going to bother uploading it unless I get a bunch of "I want to see it" comments from people. Otherwise it's a waste of my time for me to upload it on my 56K.
Now either quit the squeakin' or give me a real good reason to believe that the D9's guns are screwed rather than "But but something... but!!! but!!!!!!! I have no techinical data or proof.. BUT!!!!! Hispano!!! Chog!!!!".
-SW
-
http://communities.msn.com/MMPAviation/files/swdora.zip (http://communities.msn.com/MMPAviation/files/swdora.zip)
Right click, choose save as... and unzip it. Play it in AH.
-SW
-
no one bothered to film themselves missing to see where their bullets went instead of on the target other than aksw?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
perhaps you should ask pyro if the shvak 20mm and mg151 20mm got switched between the la7 and 190d9?
anyone having trouble hitting with the la7 btw? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
[This message has been edited by Citabria (edited 04-19-2001).]
-
SW,
I can't get the link to work. I'd like to watch that film tho.
Thx.
-
Originally posted by Citabria:
anyone having trouble hitting with the la7 btw? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
[This message has been edited by Citabria (edited 04-19-2001).]
Na in the LA7 my convergence is set at -1 so even if I miss my target I can at least shot my own plane ...
Serioulsy I rarely open fire before 250 yard so I've not trouble with any plane ... my convergence is set at 250 meters, my only trouble is avoiding getting shot down before making the target enter my lethal zone (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
All I know is that Pyro, is the kind of person to be convinced by solid facts.
That's nice to hear Verm. I suppose we can assume then that the rollrates for the various AH aircraft will shortly be fixed?
You'd be aware of the problem ... that TESTING of the AH aircraft has revealed that, with the singular exception of the Fw190, the AH aircraft for which NACA data are available roll too quickly?
Of course, the problem has only been known of for the past 4 months, and its only been 4 months since Pyro stated on this board that he was aware that the Typhoon rollrate was screwy, but I imagine it will get fixed sometime in the future.
But I won't be holding my breath waiting for it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) After all, the only aircraft disadvantaged is LW.
-
Originally posted by Jekyll:
After all, the only aircraft disadvantaged is LW.
How are the 190s at disadvantage??? I took one for a quick ride yesterday and while checking the plane out rolled it around couple of time. It rolls better then any plane I've tried before in AH. Not only that, but my squaddie acctually said I was warping a bit while doing that. No wonder that the only defence many of the LW boys do is roll around(to those who don't, flying such roll machine I prob would have started to cheat too (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)).
mx22
[This message has been edited by mx22 (edited 04-20-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Jekyll:
You'd be aware of the problem ... that TESTING of the AH aircraft has revealed that, with the singular exception of the Fw190, the AH aircraft for which NACA data are available roll too quickly?
It did? Didn't seem that simple to me. The only figures that were banded around were for a stick for of 50lb. It you look at the shape of those curves it's quite clear that many of those planes would roll quicker given higher stick forces (depedning on speed of course).
What that graph mostly showed is that some planes had much lighter controls than others.
Of course, the problem has only been known of for the past 4 months, and its only been 4 months since Pyro stated on this board that he was aware that the Typhoon rollrate was screwy, but I imagine it will get fixed sometime in the future.
He did? Wasn't it more along the lines of. 'Yeah that looks a bit odd. Not sure right now what data I used for the Typhoon roll rate. I'll double check.'
Maybe he did....
Just a guess =)
------------------
Graywolfe <tim@flibble.org>
[This message has been edited by Graywolf (edited 04-20-2001).]
-
flying such roll machine I prob would have started to cheat too
Well mx22, you may already be 'cheating' and not know it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
If you're flying the Spit IX, you've got an average 11 deg/sec roll rate that perhaps you shouldn't have.
If you fly the Typhoon, you've got an average 37 degree/sec roll rate that perhaps you shouldn't have.
Before talking about 'cheats', start checking your own nest out first (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
You're right Toad... damned MSN requires you to login.. It's 913KB zipped up, is that your real email in your profile? I'm going to send it to that address. If it bounces or doesn't work, send me an email at: weissdr1@yahoo.com and I'll email it to you.
-SW
-
190s at a disadvantage.... good joke.
-SW
-
"The only figures that were banded around were for a stick for of 50lb."
Actually, I believe that's the max amount of lateral stickpressure a normal person can be expected to excert on the control-stick.
I 98% sure that it's the max stickpressure in WB and I would be very surprised if it was different in AH.
Daff
------------------
CO, 56th Fighter Group
www.56thfightergroup.org (http://www.56thfightergroup.org)
This is Yardstick, follow me"
-
You wrong, I don't cheat (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) I fly Yak-9u these days and can't remember when was my last sortie in either Typhoon or SpitIX.
mx22
Originally posted by Jekyll:
Well mx22, you may already be 'cheating' and not know it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
If you're flying the Spit IX, you've got an average 11 deg/sec roll rate that perhaps you shouldn't have.
If you fly the Typhoon, you've got an average 37 degree/sec roll rate that perhaps you shouldn't have.
Before talking about 'cheats', start checking your own nest out first (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
190s at a disadvantage.... good joke.
I can understand your attitude AKSeaWulfe. After all, with most of your kills this tour in a Spitfire or Seafire, you'd have a lot to lose if rollrates were correct, wouldn't you (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Daff, that's my understanding as well. But the stick forces aren't really relevant to the issue. Hell, lets assume 100lb of lateral stick force. For the sake of simplicity, just double the NACA rollrate figures for a stick force of 100lb.
The result?
The Spit, Tiffie and others are STILL too fast in their roll ... the 190's are STILL too slow, only this time the Tiffie's roll rate would be a massive 73 deg/sec on average too fast across the speed band.
Mx22 - I never said you DID cheat (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) I do, however, think you were out of line inferring that 190 pilots who used their roll rate to advantage were cheating. If high speed rolls in AH induce microwarps, then that's a matter for HT to fix in code.
-
Yeah man, using a 190 for base defense makes sense... doesn't it???? (http://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/cwm/cwm/cwm13.gif)
Lets take a closer look....
Tour 15:
Stain has 36 kills and has been killed 5 times in the fw190A-5.
Tour 14:
Stain has 25 kills and has been killed 3 times in the Fw 190D-9.
AKSWulfe has 43 kills and has been killed 9 times in the fw190A-5.
Tour 12:
AKSWulfe has 74 kills and has been killed 17 times in the fw190A-5.
Want me to continue? or did I paint a big enough picture for you? (http://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/cwm/cwm/disturbed.gif)
-SW
-
AKSeaWulfe, over'n over recurring to stats. Any normal (average) pilot in AH knows that these stats mean nothing. No way to know how the kills where achieved. Co E single engangement? vulch? Brutal advantage of E? Surprise? The other was a newby? The other was an expert? etc ... Please, dont use K/D as an excuse for anything, that alone doesnt prove anything.
-
SW, enjoyed the film. Looks like you were hitting with the cannons from about 7-600 on in on the buff.
-
Originally posted by MANDOBLE:
AKSeaWulfe, over'n over recurring to stats. Any normal (average) pilot in AH knows that these stats mean nothing. No way to know how the kills where achieved. Co E single engangement? vulch? Brutal advantage of E? Surprise? The other was a newby? The other was an expert? etc ... Please, dont use K/D as an excuse for anything, that alone doesnt prove anything.
Woohoo Mandoble!! You completely missed the entire point of my post. Jekyll said something about me flying only SpitVs this tour so of course I wouldn't care about the 190's roll rate. So I dug up my stats to show him that I do fly the 190 a LOT.
Now run along before you get mistaken yet AGAIN.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Toad:
SW, enjoyed the film. Looks like you were hitting with the cannons from about 7-600 on in on the buff.
Thanks Toad, I usually don't film flights but this time I wanted to see why I would sometimes miss the easiest of snapshots. I knew that it wasn't going to be a bad modelling of the plane or the guns, I figured it had something to do with the long nose and the reduced area below the gunsight for lead shots. When I saw my shots falling long over the B17, I knew I was too high so I just pushed over and used the MG's to calibrate my aim then let loose with the 20s.
When I was 1 on 1 with that N1K I was getting frustrated each time I missed I would start grinding my teeth cuz I couldn't believe how bad I was screwing up and I was afraid during one of his zooms, I would just move a little and get me with his guns.
Thanks for watching it Toad!
-SW
-
One of the interesting parts to me was the gunsight/tracer relationship.
When this 190-D9 guns stuff started, I went offline to shoot drones. I set the convergence to 300 & found I had to move my "standard" death dot to get hits. Once I did that, it all worked pretty well.
As you know, when you view a film you see your own site, not the one used by the guy that made the film.
Anyway, your tracers were going right thru my "death dot" and getting hits when you were shooting in the 200-400 yard range. The "holdover" on the 600 yarders looked right to me too.
Do you remember what convergence setting you had?
As an aside, as I watched your fight with the N1K1, I found myself thinking "shoot! shoot!" a few times early on when the dot looked right to me.
You passed on those though. Hard to tell, but I think you might have been able to get him early on as he was coming over the top. Anyway, it looked right on my gunsite. Of course, you were low on cannon rounds and probably were looking for the sure thing.
That's a long, fun fite to watch.
-
Yeah I think I held my fire too much trying to get in as close as possible so I COULDN'T miss.... but I would end up completely blowing the shot anyway! hehe
The deathdot I have is the same one I use for everyplane, so it doesn't change between planes I just have to adapt it to each plane's type of gunfire. I know that greater than ~400yds I need to line up the plane a little below the dot and at less than ~250yds I need to line up the plane a little above the dot. In between those two ranges, I line up the dot perfectly on the plane and let my bullets fly... they hit dead on too.
My convergence is pushed all the way out to 650yds. (as in most planes except aircraft with mid-wing mounted weapons as opposed to inner-wing or fuselage mounted) I find it easy with this convergence to get a good snapshot that will either disable the enemy or at the very least take away some of his control surfaces or flaps so he has some trouble keeping his plane in tight manuevers or reversing. It might just be the way I percieve it, but to me it seems that you can get slightly better shots when leading an aircraft if you push the convergence way out there. Again, this could be percieved on my end... kind of like the placebo effect (sugar pills to remedy a non-existant illness).
Here's what my death dot looks like:
(http://content.communities.msn.com/isapi/fetch.dll?action=view_photo&ID_Community=MMPAviation&ID_Topic=2&ID_Message=7)
-SW
-
I generally make a dot sight for each aircraft I intend to fly.
I usually use a short convergence for all, around 250-300 depending on the gun set. (I may try your 650 idea though. I have never set them out that far in anything. Be interesting to see how it works out.)
I always then try the dot on the offline drones at the convergence setting. I've found that the different planes require me to move the dot up or down a bit to get the right "picture" for the particular convergence.
That is, no one dot setting seems "right on" for all the planes.
Maybe it's just me though.
-
Thanks Verm for the chart. It shows clearly that at 400 m the vertical difference between 13mm and 20mm is 80cm. That means, if your gunnery is good, up to 400m all bullets (13mm and 20mm) should hit the fuselage since it's bigger than 80cm in all directions. Hitting the wing is different, if 13mm hits the wing e.g. in a HO, the 20mm bullets will miss and vice versa. At ranges >400..500 m this effect will occur more often, even when shooting at a bomber.
Conclusion: firing two different types of guns at ranges >400m is a waste of ammo and may create the illusion that if you've hit the plane => 20mm has hit => foe has to go down.
I'm wasting ammo and I'm often victim of this illusion. I should change my "gunnery behavior" at distances > 400m (or what's applicable in AH, I have to find out)
Thanks, Verm
It would be interesting to see a similar ballistic chart for .303, .50, Hispano and other (russian, japanese) cannons.
So the lower bullet drop and the use of a single cannon type in most allied planes make hitting easier, no question. Period !
But the difference of allied and LW guns is greater in AH than in RL, because of the zoom (my opinion). I've heard, that one of the outstanding abilities of Erich Hartmann was to pick a target at ranges up to 500m, though the majority of his kills were made at ranges <300m. At which ranges do we shoot here ? 1 km ? You see ! We are all Über-Hartmanns, lol !
If nobody in this game uses zoom (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif), then we'll see if the LW guns are still so bad.
------------------
Written by Flitze
-
Your welcome Flitze! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
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. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
Originally posted by AKSeaWulfe:
Jekyll said something about me flying only SpitVs this tour so of course I wouldn't care about the 190's roll rate
I said no such thing AKSeawulf. Why don't you read my post again so that YOU are not mistaken (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)