Aces High Bulletin Board
Help and Support Forums => Help and Training => Topic started by: titanic3 on January 09, 2012, 08:33:45 PM
-
To me, I can never really "aim" for a specific part on a fighter plane (note I didn't say bomber), because of their size. I can certainly hit them, but aiming for a specific part, say cockpit or wing tips is almost impossible to me. It seems to me that once you get the whole plane in your gunsights, that's as far as "aiming" goes, from then on, it's just luck (disregard ACM, convergence).
What about you guys and gals, are you actually capable of aiming for a specific spot on a maneuvering target and hit it with a high chance of success? Or are you like me, and just try to keep your target in the sights for as long as possible until your bullets do something?
*This is for fighter planes only, not bombers, due to their size which means accurate/concentrated fire is 100% possible to achieve.
-
I do actually aim for a specific spot on a fighter, and have learned to hit it or very close to it on a regular basis.
In any type of shooting, you'll do much better long-term if you aim for a specific spot. It's a method to help refine your concentration.
It does take some practice, and discipline to learn though. But once it's learned it becomes automatic.
In AH, I always aim for the point where the fuselage meets the front edge of the canopy. I don't always hit it of course, but I aim for that same spot, and try to hit that same spot every time. If the plane is turned away so I see the bottom I just aim for that same point on the belly of the plane, imagining my bullets passing through that point and hitting the spot where the front of the canopy meets the fuselage. On bombers I aim specifically for the right wing root when I attack.
In real life, I do the same thing when I shoot. When shooting trap or skeet I focus on the front edge of the clay pigeon. When hunting upland gamebirds or waterfowl I hone-in on the birds beak. When shooting deer I pick a tiny spot to aim at; this might be a specific tuft of hair, etc if the deer is close enough to see that.
One trick I learned as a kid that definitely holds true is "Aim small, miss small. Aim big, miss big."
By that I mean that if you aim at a small spot and refine your concentration to that fine point, you may miss the precise point you're aiming at, but not by much. You aim for the "x", and miss it but still end up in the ten or nine ring. You aim at the tuft of hair over the deer's rib, miss it, but still hit the heart/lung area. You aim at the point where the canopy meets the fuselage and miss it, but hit the pilot, or the engine, or a wing root instead. That's "aiming small, missing small".
When I aim at that tiny spot, and miss by hitting the pilot, I'm thinking to myself "oops, that was a little behind". When I hit the engine I'm thinking "oops, a little too much lead". Mentally, I'm making adjustments so that my next shot is (hopefully) more accurate. I've settled on my aiming point on fighters because I know I have a tendency to fire a fraction of a second late, which often ends up in a pilot shot.
"Aiming big, missing big" is aiming at the deer itself, and missing it. It's aiming at the bird, and missing it. Aiming at the plane, and missing it.
Now, by aiming, I'm saying to look directly at the spot you want to hit, concentrating on it, and firing to hit it. The sight may be on that point, but it's more likely that it will not be. If it is, you'll probably miss. The sight tells you where the bullet will go under certain conditions, and is a valuable tool. However, on a moving target you'll seldom be able to put it where you want the bullets to strike the target. You'll need to learn to allow for trajectory, apparent target motion and angle, and time. You'll need to aim out in front of that moving target to hit it.
The best "trick" for figuring out where to aim in order to hit the target is simply concentration and practice. Focus hard on the point you want to hit, pay some attention to the gunsight in your peripheral vision, and fire when it feels right. If you're aiming right, the bullets will go where you're looking, so "aiming" for a specific spot is really all about concentrating on that spot more than putting the gunsight on it.
Look through the sight, focusing on the point you want to hit. The sight should not really be in focus.
And actually, once you learn what the sight-picture should look like and have your concentration down, you could probably get rid of the sight entirely and still do just fine.
-
Gunning from a bomber? I generally try to hit either middle wing, because that's where the guns generally are, or I go for the fuselage, because that's got engine, oil, radiator, PILOT, and sometimes even guns.
-
LOL. On this subject I must ask what size screens or display size are you guys using? I remember years ago someone saying they were aiming for a specific part of the plane & I was felling lucky to just hit anywhere on the airframe while aiming. My desktop I think was a 15" monitor & the laptop I'm on now has a 17" display, & although a little bigger, unless I'm zoomed in for the shot, I cannot even think about hitting a specific area. Plus if I zoom in, it seems like my nose bounce is more pronounced increasing the difficulty.
-
Plus if I zoom in, it seems like my nose bounce is more pronounced increasing the difficulty.
Might want to investigate why your nose is bouncing. Zooming in won't cause the nose to bounce, it only shows you what your nose bounce is doing to your bullet placement more accurately. Your nose is always bouncing, you just notice it more when zoomed in.
That said, I always feel lucky to hit anything.
-
I've got 1280 by 2024 res, and a 19(?) Or 20" screen.
-
unless I'm zoomed in for the shot, I cannot even think about hitting a specific area.
Well there's your problem. Change your thinking and improve your shooting.
-
What about you guys and gals, are you actually capable of aiming for a specific spot on a maneuvering target and hit it with a high chance of success?
Yes.
ack-ack
-
LOL. On this subject I must ask what size screens or display size are you guys using?
I upgraded from a 15" to a 22" about two years ago. 1920x 1080.
The screen size really has nothing to do with your aiming strategy though. Upgrading had negligible effect on my gunnery.
-
To me, I can never really "aim" for a specific part on a fighter plane (note I didn't say bomber), because of their size. I can certainly hit them, but aiming for a specific part, say cockpit or wing tips is almost impossible to me. It seems to me that once you get the whole plane in your gunsights, that's as far as "aiming" goes, from then on, it's just luck (disregard ACM, convergence).
What about you guys and gals, are you actually capable of aiming for a specific spot on a maneuvering target and hit it with a high chance of success? Or are you like me, and just try to keep your target in the sights for as long as possible until your bullets do something?
*This is for fighter planes only, not bombers, due to their size which means accurate/concentrated fire is 100% possible to achieve.
I'm shooting 50 cals on my P-51, so your results will be different if you're rolling with cannon...
1. I take aim and execute my shot when I think my bullets are on mark
2. See the hit sprites (somewhere on the aircraft)
3. I correct my aim with the hammer down to 'walk' them where I want them on the enemy target
This happens in half a second to a second of time. Eventually your 'corrections' will be less and less, as you learn where your guns are going to be before you ever fire them.
-
LOL. On this subject I must ask what size screens or display size are you guys using? I remember years ago someone saying they were aiming for a specific part of the plane & I was felling lucky to just hit anywhere on the airframe while aiming. My desktop I think was a 15" monitor & the laptop I'm on now has a 17" display, & although a little bigger, unless I'm zoomed in for the shot, I cannot even think about hitting a specific area. Plus if I zoom in, it seems like my nose bounce is more pronounced increasing the difficulty.
I'm still trying to get the aiming down, but I did recently upgrade from a 15" to a 24" monitor; I'm able to see what a plane is doing from further away now (less trouble seeing if the bandit is inverted with nose at me or away) and this has vicariously helped my aiming. However, just lining up a shot in general is all the same.
-
I highly doubt anyone in this game aims for specific spots on aircraft, aside from bombers. I like MtnMan's approach to "aim small miss small". If you take that line of thought and try to hit a fighter dead center you are giving yourself the highest probability of critically wounding him if you are slightly off the mark. As for "aiming for a fighter's wing" or some other specific component makes me chuckle a little bit. I am not saying it is possible to not aim for a specific wing and hit it, but from a probability standpoint, it makes little sense to aim anywhere other than dead center.
-
If they're sitting on my 6, I just strafe the whole length of the plane... Slllloooowwwwlllylyyy :devil
Except for 109s. Those things are bloody invincible -.-
-
Aiming for a particular spot on another plane is great in theory, but honestly - if you see an opportunity for a hit, you take it. During scissors or other tight turning fights, the window of opportunity for aiming is extremely narrow. The idea that you can set up to hit a particular spot just doesn't work in that scenario. You take what you can take.
-
aiming for the wings is a very easy thing to do in fighters, you pop off a burst and off comes the wing. in bombers i always aim for the fuselage, quicker kill and if that doesnt do it, you at least pissed him off and tossed his salad pretty good.
-
I highly doubt anyone in this game aims for specific spots on aircraft, aside from bombers. I like MtnMan's approach to "aim small miss small". If you take that line of thought and try to hit a fighter dead center you are giving yourself the highest probability of critically wounding him if you are slightly off the mark. As for "aiming for a fighter's wing" or some other specific component makes me chuckle a little bit. I am not saying it is possible to not aim for a specific wing and hit it, but from a probability standpoint, it makes little sense to aim anywhere other than dead center.
o.O ...a guy with your level of gunnery says that? Interesting.
I guess maybe part of what makes it work for you is you tend to favor the tater, and the capability you seem to have that most lack is the variety of angles you can put rounds on target.
Mtnman's posts and general gunnery philosophy is pretty much definitive on how to approach gunnery IMO. "Aim small miss small" very much works in game and IRL as well.
The way it happens for me in game isn't so much me flying in and 5 seconds from pulling the trigger I'm thinking to myself, 'I am going to aim for that plane's left wingroot on this pass.' Rather, it's as the shot develops and I feel it's time to pull the trigger, I am picking a spot partly based on the nature of the plane, partly based on the way the target maneuvers. If he's breaking slightly low and in planform, I'm aiming for the high wing/wingroot so I don't have to push over as hard to get rounds on if I didn't quite get my approach right, and I don't have to pull up as hard to avoid the collision.
On a non-maneuvering aircraft from behind, I generally align my wings level with his and aim for a wingroot. I fly mostly planes with wing mounted guns, and this puts the best possible percentage of my rounds on his wing and generally takes it off quickly.
One other thing I find useful when picking a point to aim at, is to aim for that specific part, but if possible, pick a part that if you're off, based on how he's maneuvering you still may hit other parts of his plane. One of my foibles that I believe is fairly common is, I don't generally lead things enough when I'm lining them up. I use this information when I'm lining up a shot. For example, if I have someone barrel rolling in front of me, I aim for the inside wing, so if I didn't lead him enough, and hit behind where I'm expecting him in the maneuver, it may catch the body of his plane, tail, or outside wing. I use that kind of thought process in a lot of cases from a lot of different angles.
YMMV, but that works decently well for me. Dead Man's comment about taking what you can get in a knife fight is also dead on. You can't pick a spot every time. If the situation allows it though, I find picking a spot works better than just aiming for the plane.
Wiley.
-
The way it happens for me in game isn't so much me flying in and 5 seconds from pulling the trigger I'm thinking to myself, 'I am going to aim for that plane's left wingroot on this pass.' Rather, it's as the shot develops and I feel it's time to pull the trigger, I am picking a spot partly based on the nature of the plane, partly based on the way the target maneuvers.
So in other words, you are leading him where you feel he is going to maneuver to, not targeting a specific component. If you feel he is going to curve downward in a flat turn you aren't aiming for his low wing persay, you are leading to where you think his aircraft is going to maneuver to which is very smart. 95%+ of planes in turns while being targeted tend to maneuver downward as they turn. Leading on the bottom wingtip is the correct spot to set up based on this observation.
One other thing I find useful when picking a point to aim at, is to aim for that specific part, but if possible, pick a part that if you're off, based on how he's maneuvering you still may hit other parts of his plane.
Exactly. The point of target that gives you the largest margin for error is the center of the aircraft, which is surrounded by critical components. Aiming at a wing is silly because no one is good enough to be able to connect on the wing a high enough percentage of the time to offset the times you barely miss to the sides of the wing, whereas, if you were aiming dead center of the aircraft you would have hit the cockpit or the tail.
Like I said, the only exception could be against a bomber because the centers of their frame absorb so much damage, so your intent then is to save ammo by only firing at the tips of the wings. But I would still argue this is inefficient because in the same number of rounds fired at the tip versus the body, you will connect with ten times as many rounds on the main body, likely offsetting any gains you got from only targeting the weak wing tip. Or if you completely miss the tip you are really going to kick yourself. But if you are not good enough to avoid a complete miss 99% of the time, what makes you think you are good enough to be targeting specific components of an aircraft? :old:
And btw, my aim is nothing special, it is the angles I take that allow me to take very easy shots is what is my strength.
-
So in other words, you are leading him where you feel he is going to maneuver to, not targeting a specific component. If you feel he is going to curve downward in a flat turn you aren't aiming for his low wing persay, you are leading to where you think his aircraft is going to maneuver to which is very smart. 95%+ of planes in turns while being targeted tend to maneuver downward as they turn. Leading on the bottom wingtip is the correct spot to set up based on this observation.
More or less. If I've set up correctly, like you say, aiming for the low wing is the smart setup. The example where I was going for the high wing was assuming his break worked a bit, but I'm still trying and capable of getting guns-on.
Exactly. The point of target that gives you the largest margin for error is the center of the aircraft, which is surrounded by critical components. Aiming at a wing is silly because no one is good enough to be able to connect on the wing a high enough percentage of the time to offset the times you barely miss to the sides of the wing, whereas, if you were aiming dead center of the aircraft you would have hit the cockpit or the tail.
You're still aiming for a specific target though, you're still picking a point by aiming for the middle.
I think I see where our experiences differ. I've noticed your posts where if I recall correctly, most of your shots are taken unloaded. It's kind of like billiards. The pros rarely have to take a difficult shot because they put themselves in position not to have to. People who aren't at that level often work a bit differently because their setups are mostly less than perfect.
I rarely am stick neutral when I pull the trigger, generally due to not being set up ideally. You're sending out a virtual tunnel of bullets, while I'm probably sending out something that looks more like you took a paintbrush and flicked it up along my lift vector. On a good day, it's a little flick, sometimes it's a lot. If they're flying through a tunnel of your bullets, aiming for the middle gives you the best possible hit percentage, because he's going through it tip to tail. You'd be silly to be aiming to the sides of center.
When I'm taking a shot at a breaking enemy, I'm almost always pulling Gs in some fashion. Like I say, on a good day, I get closer and closer to unloaded. On a bad day, I'm looking through my blackout tunnel. My point is, my bullets are usually in a 'slash'. If I aimed for the center, generally speaking, the slash starts in the middle, and moves up and to one side of the plane, right? Whereas if I aim to the inside lower corner of the plane, the slash has a better probability of intersecting more of the plane or the center of the plane.
Like I said, the only exception could be against a bomber because the centers of their frame absorb so much damage, so your intent then is to save ammo by only firing at the tips of the wings. But I would still argue this is inefficient because in the same number of rounds fired at the tip versus the body, you will connect with ten times as many rounds on the main body, likely offsetting any gains you got from only targeting the weak wing tip. Or if you completely miss the tip you are really going to kick yourself. But if you are not good enough to avoid a complete miss 99% of the time, what makes you think you are good enough to be targeting specific components of an aircraft? :old:
And btw, my aim is nothing special, it is the angles I take that allow me to take very easy shots is what is my strength.
Depending on the day and setup, I like to get my wings level with his and aim for the wingroot. This assumes a moderate closing speed, coming in from the top, which is my favorite spot to attack a bomber from. I also have decent success raking the entire fuselage if I'm closing too fast or haven't got a great angle to aim comfortably for the wingroot. That's with a gun package of 8x50s or larger.
Wiley.
-
You're still aiming for a specific target though, you're still picking a point by aiming for the middle.
Absolutely, you pick a point, but understand that the margin of error in your accuracy is too large to pick any other point than the center of a fighter. If I wanted to, I could only aim at a fighter's lower wing. I would connect with the lower wing a certain percentage of the time, the main body a certain percentage, and completely miss low a certain percentage. Had I aligned the middle, I will hit middle the most, the top wing and lower wing second most, cockpit and tail, third most, plus all the complete misses.
Imo at 400 yds, every pilot in this game, aside from a select handful, has a larger margin for error than the entire surface area of the aircraft. At 200 yds, some players can aim at certain regions of the aircraft. Not until 100 yds can you really pick out a specific spot on the aircraft you want to shoot at, and if you're this close, might as well just aim for center and end it. At the end of the day, I just don't see any good reason why you would target any component other than the meat of the aircraft that offsets the loss in accuracy.
-
Absolutely, you pick a point, but understand that the margin of error in your accuracy is too large to pick any other point than the center of a fighter. If I wanted to, I could only aim at a fighter's lower wing. I would connect with the lower wing a certain percentage of the time, the main body a certain percentage, and completely miss low a certain percentage. Had I aligned the middle, I will hit middle the most, the top wing and lower wing second most, cockpit and tail, third most, plus all the complete misses.
I understand your point. For me, I feel if I aim at the center I am most likely to hit to the outside and to the rear as someone is breaking. On a near miss, I rarely miss low, and rarely miss to the front. It seems to me that by aiming toward the front and low, I am more likely to put rounds on target because of where the vast majority of my misses go when my concentration slips.
Wiley.
-
I understand your point. For me, I feel if I aim at the center I am most likely to hit to the outside and to the rear as someone is breaking. On a near miss, I rarely miss low, and rarely miss to the front. It seems to me that by aiming toward the front and low, I am more likely to put rounds on target because of where the vast majority of my misses go when my concentration slips.
Wiley.
You are still aiming for the center doing that, you are just correcting for your error/the enemies tendencies to turn low. Jmho.
-
I have a half dozen films if needed, but I specifically aim for parts of an aircraft - i.e wings or tail whichever is most vulnerable. Some aircraft like a Zero don't require any real aim - no armor means just score some hits on the fuselage. Spitfires - have weaker wings then some aircraft, a key aim point.
It comes down to experience and practice, not switching aircrafts for a tour can help - pick one or two for an entire tour so you can learn the bullet dispersion pattern. Some aircraft like the C.205 have very heavy hitting armament, where a P-51D doesn't have as much firepower, also the dispersion pattern is twice as big. Another key thing to learn, is to get as close as possible - I rarely fire at 400, or beyond 400 range, 90% of my kills are done under 200, and usually in a turn fight which uses far less ammo, and more concentrated firepower. Problem most players have is, you can set the convergence to 400, get close as 200 and end up missing all together, it really depends what aircraft you are going to stick too, and practice practice practice.
Honestly I don't rely so much on aim as I do that fancy pilot stuff, when you are under 200 from a target, you can't really miss.
-
Wow, some good conversation going here!
I agree with a lot of what I'm seeing.
I would have to agree with a few points in particular...
My gunnery is better than many (floats in the 12-14% range), but I also think that has a lot to do with the shots that I set up and take. I've learned that many of the shots I'm tempted to take are low percentage, so I simply don't squeeze the trigger. I wait until I have an easier shot set up. It also helps that I'm confident (overconfident?) enough to honestly believe I'll get that better opportunity as well... And I believe that in many cases firing at (settling for) a low percentage shot is actually what PREVENTS me from getting that better shot a few seconds later.
As a result, I hit a large portion of the shots I take but that's because by the time I fire the shot is almost a "gimme".
I do fire "unloaded" short bursts almost exclusively. It's rare for me to be firing at anything much above or below 1G. In a saddled-up scenario I seldom fire while flying a curve; I'm almost always flying a pattern that flattens out for my shots (imagine flying a circle shaped like a STOP sign, firing on the flats only).
And although I do specifically concentrate on trying to hit the area where the front of the cockpit meets the cowl, I do that because it's "center-mass" and I know that I have a tendency to shoot a tad late; I compensate by aiming for the front half of the target.
When it comes to aiming for very specific spots on the plane though, I've actually sent a LOT of hours doing just that. One of my favorite "games" when I'm assured of an uninterrupted 1 v 1 is to do my absolute best to remove my opponents ailerons ONLY (no wingtips). Back when Saber and I were flying together we often held little "competitions" doing this (to see who could do it more frequently than the other). One of us would even set up as a high "guard" while the other would try to snipe the ailerons off of his opponent.
I have to admit though, that is a freakin' tough game, and we were unsuccessful more often than not (mainly we got too carried away and removed a wingtip, at which point the game was forfeit). It also was a far-from-efficient way to fight, and got us killed a fair amount of time when we could probably have beaten our opponent otherwise. But then again it was a awesome game, lol! Addicting...
-
Maybe some of you guys could post screen shots of the types of shots your looking for. Mtnman's "low percentage" "high percentage" type shots. Grizz has some "tater" shot posted someplace I think.
I know the angles, ranges, site pictures are endless, but showing us what a low percentage shot looks like and why, and high percentage shots look like and why they are may clear some of the fog and help the rest of us make better decisions on "when" to take a shot.
-
I want to do an illustrated write up on "lining up low and in front" but have nowhere near the motivation to get it done right.
-
Maybe some of you guys could post screen shots of the types of shots your looking for. Mtnman's "low percentage" "high percentage" type shots. Grizz has some "tater" shot posted someplace I think.
I know the angles, ranges, site pictures are endless, but showing us what a low percentage shot looks like and why, and high percentage shots look like and why they are may clear some of the fog and help the rest of us make better decisions on "when" to take a shot.
I could probably drum up a few shots to explain what you are talking about - here's a percentage chance i'd shoot at a target:
at 600 and the target is out running me - 5% I'd fire, ignore and turn back if the target continues to out accelerate me or knowingly has more energy
at 600 and the target is a snapshot - 0% chance i'd fire, reverse and get closer if the situation allows.
at 400 and the target is out running me - 35% i'd fire if he tries to out run me and under 400 yards, aim for fuselage.
at 400 and the target is a snapshot - 10% - fire a small burst ahead of him hoping the bullets strike the cockpit or engine.
at 200 and the target is out running me - 100% - a long burst attempting to strike any damage, preferably a wing.
at 200 and the target is a snapshot - 100% - I fire early on to make sure i don't miss period, I want the rounds to go from the prop to the tail, if I miss early I know where the rounds will end up eventually.
I will edit some videos to show ideal shots, and some that arn't, but this is my basic guideline for aiming.
-
I could probably drum up a few shots to explain what you are talking about - here's a percentage chance i'd shoot at a target:
at 600 and the target is out running me - 5% I'd fire, ignore and turn back if the target continues to out accelerate me or knowingly has more energy
at 600 and the target is a snapshot - 0% chance i'd fire, reverse and get closer if the situation allows.
at 400 and the target is out running me - 35% i'd fire if he tries to out run me and under 400 yards, aim for fuselage.
at 400 and the target is a snapshot - 10% - fire a small burst ahead of him hoping the bullets strike the cockpit or engine.
at 200 and the target is out running me - 100% - a long burst attempting to strike any damage, preferably a wing.
at 200 and the target is a snapshot - 100% - I fire early on to make sure i don't miss period, I want the rounds to go from the prop to the tail, if I miss early I know where the rounds will end up eventually.
I will edit some videos to show ideal shots, and some that arn't, but this is my basic guideline for aiming.
I'm curious what you're basing your percentages on here. Just the chances that you'd be *willing to squeeze the trigger?
I think what we're discussing here has more to do with which shots am I *most likely to hit my opponent on.
People don't generally have issues figuring out when they'd like to squeeze the trigger; the difficult decision (if there's one to be made) is on which shots are more likely to be successful vs those that are more likely to just be wasteful.
On those shots that you're 100% likely to take, what are the chances you'll actually hit your target? What type of a hit% are you looking at? If you fire 1000 rounds and only hit with 1 or 2, that's a hit, but it's not a very good one...
-
Maybe some of you guys could post screen shots of the types of shots your looking for. Mtnman's "low percentage" "high percentage" type shots. Grizz has some "tater" shot posted someplace I think.
I know the angles, ranges, site pictures are endless, but showing us what a low percentage shot looks like and why, and high percentage shots look like and why they are may clear some of the fog and help the rest of us make better decisions on "when" to take a shot.
Sorry, didn't mean to ignore this post, but I was on my way to work and didn't have time to answer it.
I could post screenshots, but I'm not sure how effective that would be.
I think film would be a better option, because I could post multiple, identical, screenshots that would qualify as both "high percentage" and "low percentage" shots for ME, and MY style of set-up and gunnery (depending upon the situation). There are shots I won't take in certain instances, because I decide they're "low percentage", but that I'll take every time in different instances because I decide they're "high percentage". By "high percentage" I mean I have a high likelihood of hitting my target, while in my mind any shot where I don't think I stand a good chance of hitting my opponent I consider "low percentage". It's generally a snap, momentary decision though, and it's based on "feeling" so probably isn't really all that measurable...
Another issue I foresee is that I generally make that decision a second or so (?) before the shot opportunity, and if I judge it to be "low percentage" chance I don't even attempt to achieve a shot solution. The result though is that through the film you won't even see shot solutions develop in all of the places that I deem "low percentage". There may be a handful of places in a fight where I think I could possibly pull for a shot solution (that for one reason or another I deem low percentage) but you'll never see a shot solution develop on film because I simply don't pull for it. I'll almost always choose to use my E to continue working towards what I see as a better option rather than to "waste" it on pulling for a shot.
At the same time though, I'll put my plane where I believe I'm in an "un-shootable" position but so close to being in a "shootable" location that my opponent will be so tempted to pull for it that he'll succumb to that temptation, pull for the shot, and miss me. Meanwhile, I'm partway through the process of getting myself into position for a kill-shot.
Yup, sounds "<insert name for male chicken here>", and I admit that I'm very (over?)confident in almost any 1 v 1 fight. I honestly believe that I'm going to win, and I'm honestly surprised when I don't. I point that out because I think that's a common thought-process / mentality for many if not most skilled fighter pilots. That <male rooster again>iness is what gives me the confidence to pass on shot opportunities and go for something better.
So I wonder if film would even "show" the difference between what I consider good shots (for ME) to take vs what I consider bad shots (for ME) to take? I also suspect that my judgement on good/bad opportunities would vary quite a bit from the judgement of other players. I think it would take a combination of film and narration to point out where I could have been tempted to fire (or maneuver to achieve a shot) but chose not to.
-
So I wonder if film would even "show" the difference between what I consider good shots (for ME) to take vs what I consider bad shots (for ME) to take? I also suspect that my judgement on good/bad opportunities would vary quite a bit from the judgement of other players. I think it would take a combination of film and narration to point out where I could have been tempted to fire (or maneuver to achieve a shot) but chose not to.
This is exactly what I was thinking when I read your reply.
There is certainly more than just "point and shoot" when creating a shot solution. There are a number of decisions that lead up to even deciding whether or not to take the shot. Personally I'd love to see something like a narrated film, or tutorial with screen shots to illustrate what your thought process is when approaching a shot.
For me shooting is the toughest part of the game. I grew up in a small town, just 20 minutes from the third largest city in Mass. While some parts of town have "woods" it's not something people hunt in. Guns, bows and arrows and such were not a big pass time around here. Cars and bikes were. The first and only time I shot guns was in the service. And while sports has there share of "aim" it's not the same and doesn't seem to translate well.
So with no real background in this it is the toughest thing to learn due to the many variables. Let me know if you want to build something, maybe I could help put it together like this one (http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/fugitivesflashtutorials/mouse.swf) I helped make for the trainers.
-
This is exactly what I was thinking when I read your reply.
There is certainly more than just "point and shoot" when creating a shot solution. There are a number of decisions that lead up to even deciding whether or not to take the shot. Personally I'd love to see something like a narrated film, or tutorial with screen shots to illustrate what your thought process is when approaching a shot.
For me shooting is the toughest part of the game. I grew up in a small town, just 20 minutes from the third largest city in Mass. While some parts of town have "woods" it's not something people hunt in. Guns, bows and arrows and such were not a big pass time around here. Cars and bikes were. The first and only time I shot guns was in the service. And while sports has there share of "aim" it's not the same and doesn't seem to translate well.
So with no real background in this it is the toughest thing to learn due to the many variables. Let me know if you want to build something, maybe I could help put it together like this one (http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/fugitivesflashtutorials/mouse.swf) I helped make for the trainers.
It's a tough thing to teach as well.
I'm intrigued by what you made. It might be an interesting project... Hmmm....
-
Fascinated by discussion among some of the best shooters in the game. Unfortunately link went nowhere (for me anyway).
-
Fascinated by discussion among some of the best shooters in the game. Unfortunately link went nowhere (for me anyway).
Let me know what information you need, and ill try to get it for ya.
-
Fascinated by discussion among some of the best shooters in the game.
I agree, I'd be really interested in seeing explanations of various shot set-ups.
-
I agree, I'd be really interested in seeing explanations of various shot set-ups.
Can you explain this a little more? like in a video format or Pictorial?
-
Can you explain this a little more? like in a video format or Pictorial?
Either way would be fine. Video format or something like this: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,280043.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,280043.0.html)
-
Either way would be fine. Video format or something like this: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,280043.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,280043.0.html)
Let me see if I can put something like this together.