Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: bustr on May 02, 2013, 09:20:01 PM
-
About every 6 months new info comes up on the Internet about ww2 tech that wasn't available before. Technical manual descriptions, color reticle photos, and pilot descriptions for gunsight diameters, rocket firing aids, and what they looked like have suddenly shown up in my searches.
Copy this to your hard drive and expand it. Each country's folder will have a readme file describing which gunsight goes with which aircraft along with the gunsight files. Remember each "gunsight.bmp" file must have it's "gunsight.mil" file copied with it to the game's "sights" folder to show up the correct usable size in the game.
Download link for Historic.5.2.13.zip >>> http://www53.zippyshare.com/v/81862467/file.html
Note: If you click to download and get a window saying your media player has to be updated, CLICK ON THE RIGHT HAND UPPER RED "X" BUTTON to close it. Then the official looking Adobe screen that comes up. Kill that window by clicking on the upper right hand window big red "X" button. ZippyShare is aware of this.
-------------------------------------------
Standard AAF gunsight ring diameters:
Very early on 30Mil.
As a standard for gunner positions a 70\35Mil combination of rings. 35Mil became the standard for (1rad).
1rad = 35Mil
2rad = 70Mil
3rad = 105Mil
70Mil became the standard for fighters with a later requirement in the N9 101Mil.
-------------------------------------------------------
Standard NAVY\Marine gunsight ring diameters:
70\35 was used in gun turret. 100\50 was the standard in the Mk8 gunsight.
------------------------------------------------------
British MkII 100mph ring.
2rad or 70Mil. It was increased to 105Mil post 1941 with the increase in the speed of fighters and use of cannons.
------------------------------------------------------
AAF rocket aiming aid or Rocket Ladder "You can't have too many":
AAF technical description for the 5" rocket aiming aid "Rocket Ladder".
A center cross with 2 - 45 degree radial lines down to lower quadrants stopping at a 70Mil arc line. Using the center cross as the center of a 70Mil ring, lines of radii every 10Mil to 70Mil.
Center cross is 1\2 degree, 1degree = 17 Mil.
Along with that I found technical references to the Lynn L3 gunsight being modified for the P38L with rocket aiming aid for the 10 5" rockets. That became the L31A concurrent with the K14A for the P51D and P47D\N. With K14 and K14A manual, pilot descriptions for it and the K14 and K14A fixed reticles. So pictures are worth a thousand words while pilots remember many things years later.........
I tested this offline with P38L and P51D. The 70Mil line is for high speed low angle of attack. As your angle of attack increases you use the lines closer to the center of the sight. During WW2 firing in salvos was standard to overcome the inaccuracy and short range of rockets. The 45 degree arc accounts for not being lined up to a point, while you can begin to appreciate the ball under the gunsight if you try this offline with the dive bomb cross hair enabled.
Pictures of the K14 fixed reticle and the variations on the K14A fixed reticles.
K14 70Mil fixed round.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img689/9104/k14rnd70.gif)
K14A fixed round and Ladder description 1.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img11/670/k14arnd70.gif)
K14A fixed and Ladder description 2.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img521/7519/k14arndv2.gif)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pictures of the L3 and the variations on the L31A "Rocket Ladder".
Unless I can find a real picture or the manual, these are pilots references of the L31A.
L3 used in the P38J and P38L. 50Mil ring and dot.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img27/975/46163663.gif)
L31A description 1.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img694/5163/l31a.gif)
L31A description 2.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img543/3736/l31av2.gif)
L31A description 3.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img254/5999/l31av3.gif)
-
Update on Rocket Ladders.
Following some ww2 directions I read on the Internet about how the 5" rockets were used, I tested that offline with the rocket ladder in this Pac.
1-2K alt 300+ ia diving shallow or level 1k will place the 70Mil arc on the target 400-600yds.
Depending on the aircraft including british tiff and Mossi, diving at 60-70 degree lines up on the two arc up from the 70Mil bottom arc. When you make a turn back to a target like a gun position aim with the radial 45 degree line opposite the direction of your turn if you don't have a long running distance at the target. Works well on single rockets against gun positions. You can compensate for the inertia of the turn if you finish your turn pointing off to the opposite side of the target from which you turned to it. As you level and allow your aircraft to adjust the aimpoint will settle closer to the target as you adjust a bit back to it.
Tested the Revi16D in the Fw190F8 and found that the first tick mark up from the bottom of the circle is the aimpoint if you first achieve 300+ ia flying in 1-2k alt. When you attack a ground target from higher with a steeper angle the first tick down from center becomes the aimpoint. Similar to diagrams in Luft manual.
Rockets are not pinpoint accurate and you need to practice for tank busting. In ww2 rockets were fired in ganged salvos because of the inaccuracy.
The rocket ladder can be used for bomb aiming at angles 60-70 degree. More shallow your drop point is just off the hood. It was found that AAF pilots would not use the dial controlled tilt bombing head for gunsights to drop bombs. Instead they aimed from experience because it was too much trouble setting the dial on the gunsight bombing head piece. The 5 inch rockets changed that and the rocket ladder aiming aid was created for the L3 and K14. The NAVY Mk8 with stadia marks on every 5Mil gave the NAVY\Marine flyers their rocket ladder.
Hitech has created a very real physics environment in which even the most minor tools from WW2 work as designed.
-
A lot of work Bustr and it is well appreciated. Just last night I was wondering which gunsight was histrionically correct for the P38. This morning I was going to do a google but thought I would see what was happening on the form first then found your post.
I will change them out to the right sights tonight.
A big thanks. :aok
-
This is a game and there is no right sight for anything. BluBerry is offering some day glow psychedelic sights in the Films and Screenshots forum for those who would pimp their Pony skin if Hitech allowed it. They roughly adhere to 100Mil ring and dot in an xBox kind of way. Mine are the simple work man's tools all militaries in WW2 developed to keep things simple and to the point. Killing the enemy and blowing his stuff up.
I provided these for those players who enjoy keeping what they see authentic as possible. A side benefit is the gunsights adhere to the physics modeling in game of 1Mil = 2pixel. So if you want to dig up info from WW2 manuals where I obtained the data for the sights, on speeds to take advantage of the gunsights for bombing or firing rockets. There is a reasonable chance the gunsight will operate as specified.
Also if you read "Bag the Hun" or "Schiessfibel"(there is an English translation somewhere on the internet), the gunsights are optically the sizes in reference to the instructions.
This article at SimHQ does an excellent job of cutting to the chase from both publications.
http://www.simhq.com/_air10/air_312a.html
-
BluBerry is offering some day glow psychedelic sights in the Films and Screenshots forum for those who would pimp their Pony skin if Hitech allowed it. They roughly adhere to 100Mil ring and dot in an xBox kind of way. Mine are the simple work man's tools all militaries in WW2 developed to keep things simple and to the point. Killing the enemy and blowing his stuff up.
Bustr, yet again I find myself reading a post where you feel compelled to bring me up, and act as an authority on my work. Previously I avoided responding when I noticed you brought me up, I had hoped it would be an isolated incident and you would move on, but I was wrong. Being that you not only created the topic, but are also the one who detoured it onto the subject of myself, I will happily oblige you.
You repeatedly avoid publicly expressing the true magnitude of your dislike for my work or myself, but are always acting as the highest authority on my work and the subject related to it. Habitually describing my work passive aggressively with your colorful and pretentious wording.
You wrongfully assume that I think my gun sights are superior and that if given the chance I would modify every ounce of the game I could. You try your best to appear as though you are accepting of the freedom the players have to not only create but decide for themselves what gun sight is used, but I suspect that if gun sights mirrored the rules for skins and they had to be historic and submitted for approval by HTC you would the happiest of us all. In your usual obnoxious way, anyone who enjoys the gun sights I make you categorize as "those who would pimp their pony skin if Hitech allowed it"
I do not now, nor have I ever thought or believed that the gun sights I make are better then anything else, historic or not.
I have never said anything against historic gun sights, and I certainly do not recognize your imaginary war between historic sights and those that are not.
I make a huge variety of gun sights...Some of the are simply entertaining, others are reflective of things that the individual who requested it finds important or enjoys, some are for squads and show their pride and allows them to have something unique. Some are just general use and purpose, and from the multiple posts in which you've referenced them, these ones you normally like to describe as "Psychedelic".. However there is nothing psychedelic about them.
The entire collection of gun sights I just released I created for one person, and out of kindness not by request. That person spoke to me about having difficulty shooting enemies because as he said "he would lose the gun sight" in certain situations due to its contrast and his vision. After chatting and understanding his game settings to be fine and not responsible for the issue he went on to talking about how some sights had to much clutter and he couldn't see and wanted something simple.
So I alt-tabbed right then and started work for him and in a few hours time I created them all and emailed them to him. He found them massively helpful and so I went on to release them.
The person was using your historic gun sight pack...
Does that mean they are bad sights? Not at all.
Does it mean that this person is now against historic sights? Nope, he uses them and enjoys them.
Did a newer player have an better and more enjoyable experience because he is now using a gun sight that makes his particular issue easier to manage? Yes.
99% of the gun sights I create are never seen by or made available to the community, only by the individual who requested it.
Want in on a little secret? I make historic gun sights.
I have made, and will continue to make historic gun sights. I have made every historic gun sight that someone has requested me to.
The only exception was the KI-43 gun sight, the day after the person requested it, you posted the KI-43 gun sight you made, and I informed the individual of your post and he was good to go.
I only give out my historic works to those who ask to have them, the only reason I do not post them to the general public is because it means one less aspect that I have to deal with you. It was apparent in the very first days I created gun sights how you felt.
Knowing how much you disliked my work I refrained from making one that was requested by one of your squaddies for YOU as a joke.
There is no difference in the accuracy, ability or utility between what I can create and what you recreate. I'm as well versed as you in the technical aspects of what we make, I just don't need to use it as part of the sales pitch, I post my work and let it speak for itself.
The question of better or worse is not on you or I, the makers... gun sights fit the needs of the user and their preferences or they don't, its all personal preference.
I make sights that some people don't use because they are busy or "cluttered".. but those same sights are currently being used by many who find them helpful or fun. That same truth applies to your historic recreation's.
To date
I have 6 people who are awaiting me to finish their gun sights and 2 squads ( I do them in order of request)
I've finished the requests of 124 people for private to sights
I've finished the requests of 8 different squad sights
I have produced a total of 501 images that can be used as gun sights in this game thus far.
I make avatars for BBS users and have started making skins...
I do all of it because I still find it fun, and helping people is rewarding. That has to hold true for you as well with what you make.
You have no reason to keep referencing my work in a negative way, your opinion was noted long ago and holds no weight.
If you want to waste your time making me the horseman of your "arcade gamer" apocalypse I cant stop you...
If anyone who uses my gun sights, including myself.. are being lumped together as "the people who would pimp their pony skin" then know this..
It is "us" who will keep this game alive. old men on older machines resistant to change won't be enough to do the trick. It will be thanks to all the people who get cast aside as squeaker's, arcade gamers, noobs, and even those who would pimp their pony skin, that allow a grumpy old man like you a game to come back to..
The greatest thing about gun sights is that each person in the game can have their preferences met while having absolutely no effect on anyone else. It is content that will keep people staying and attract others to joining, people are content hungry...that's just how it is and how it will continue to be.. and I will continue to do what I do in providing content. My small contribution allows a player one more small thing to select from, while never harming the experience for anyone else.
So continue on as you are, and I will continue on as I am... and you can thank "us" later.
-
I'm attempting to help preserve a rapidly disappearing and generationaly ignored part of American history. Along with the technology and specifications germane to it. I enjoy the research and being surprised at how realistic Hitech's physics modeling is based on what to expect when following the WW2 era tech manuals. It's dying off at an alarming rate across all country's that took part along with much new interest in preserving it as it is. This game in some ways mirrors that as the earliest players from AW, WB and AH 1999 era are being replaced by the xBox and popular culture social media generation.
A long time friend and teacher of mine who flew A6m at the end of WW2 passed, with very little of what things really looked like or mattered that his generation cared about. At least the Japanese government sent Japan's condolences to his widow here in California. I still think he was fibbing when he told me he flew one sortie as Saburo Sakai's wingman. His first active duty mission, he was straffed on the runway and spent the last months of the war in a hospital with a large hole in his leg.
Thickness of skin is inversely proportional to the height of the text wall in the Internet. Before the full blossom of the Internet culture when I was first a student of my friend. It would have been thickness of skin is inversely proportional to the volume and litany of personal accomplishments to anyone who hadn't passed through an exit from the room yet.
-
I have seen pictures of the gun-sights and see how it works i think. Is the gun-sight art on a glass plate that the light projects threw?
-
First of all I have to say that I don't use anything that's not included in the game DL including skins, sounds, sights, etc. other than a small handfull of skins used specifically for scenarios.
That out of the way I applaude every players contributions to the game and the community. Everyone's different. Some people buy an old car and restore it to it's former glory while others hot rod it. There's no right or wrong here, only differeces. It would be quite boring if everything in the world was the same.
Because of that there's no need to refer to anyone elses contributions in a derogotory fashion. Does Greebo whine when Krusty releases a skin? Did Fester whine when new maps were released? Does Lusche whine if someone posts a stat? Did I whine when Ink started a dueling ladder? The list goes on and on and I can tell you in every case the answer is no. It's simply because in every case these things can co-exist.
I've been watching over the past few months as Bustr has tried to carve a niche in game contributions via historic gunsights. Thank you for the time and effort to make the game more enjoyable for some but your snide remarks against BluBerry's work are uncalled for. There's no issue with touting your own work but other's contributions are no less valid than yours.
BTW, in terms of Berrys, Blueberrys are among the toughest skinned. ;)
-
So does this mean I should stop researching technical archives, collecting manuals, talking to WW2 vets, finding their past interviews or contacting sources in this ww2 tech field? This is a "ww2 tech" game. Or is it a kiddy piu, piu, piu game?
Who here including myself until now ever saw the actual reticle for a San Giorgio tipo C let alone the night reticle? I always hoped Hitech owned a few of the gunsights or had access to them. I made the same mistake previous players in past airsim games of relying on the same 2 or 3 anecdotally passed down patterns from an interview with an Italian pilot that I've never been able to find. That's why I contacted Maurizio Di Terlizzi. I'm still searching for a photo, manual or diagram of the L31A reticle modification for the P38L. The three I constructed are pilot remembrances and generic technical description notes describing the 5" HVAR rocket aiming lines. At least the constant here is the visual referencing for reticle structures based on Mil and rad to known tested outcomes in ww2. By 1945 there was very little not to know about the capabilities of a fixed reticle related to shooting or dropping things from an aircraft.
I had never found a reference to Italian night fighters but, the reticle structure of the tipo C day reticle looks to have a strong Zeiss Reflexvisier influence. Germany and Italy were allies after all. The Italians were having problems with distortion in their collimator lenses due to manufacturing techniques. And the Reflexvisier from C12 on came standard with red Nacth filters as an option using segmented line portions similar to the tipo C. I've even found a photo of the reticle for the San Giorgio tip A if HTC releases early war Italian aircraft.
But, then this being a kiddy game, a simple generic dot eventually works fine to accomplish piu, piu ,piu boom.
-
bustr......thank you.
-
Bustr,
Coming from someone looking in on this debate, please hear me out before making any comments.
I don't think anyone, even Bluberry, is saying that you should stop researching the gun sights. I personally like reading about them in your posts. However I do not use them simply because I prefer certain sights that do not clutter up my sight picture.
Is this to say that I play this game for the 'piu piu bang' that you mentioned? No. I still respect the history behind it, and I respect the men that used them along with yourself for taking the time to research it. It is just not my cup of tea. When I finally get a chance to land some hits (And I fly the 109E so those chances are few and far between) I prefer a clean sight to give me the best chance of getting the lead on target.
Everyone has their own way of playing this game. Some people are 100% historical and fly a certain skin with a certain gun sight and fly at a certain altitude and attempt to hunt a certain enemy.
Others prefer to play a game. Bomb and bail, muck around in a GV, fly a 262 through a hanger.
Neither of these things is 'Wrong'. Sure, bomb and bail is bad, but it is not 'Wrong' per say. Their money, their rules. As such I do not think it is right for you to insult Bluberry's work on gunsights just because he may do them slightly differant to you. As BaldEagl mentioned, other creators do not insult others. So Greebo may do more research into skins than I do when I create one, but he does not insult my work on the boards. I am curious as to why you believe that it is acceptable to do so?
Again, no one is saying stop researching. I feel a lot of people appreciate it. However there is no need for snide remarks simply because another creater does it slightly differantly.
<S> For your hard work and effort.
-
So does this mean I should stop researching technical archives, collecting manuals, talking to WW2 vets, finding their past interviews or contacting sources in this ww2 tech field? This is a "ww2 tech" game. Or is it a kiddy piu, piu, piu game?
But, then this being a kiddy game, a simple generic dot eventually works fine to accomplish piu, piu ,piu boom.
You just can't help insulting people can you.
Nowhere did I say you should stop researching and making gunsights. I even thanked you for your efforts even though I personally don't use player made content.
This is both a WWII game and an arcade game ("kiddie game" in your words) depending on how you want to play but at the moment you're the only one being immature.
-
Everytime i download your sights they never work right they never show up in game or WAYYY to small
-
Everytime i download your sights they never work right they never show up in game or WAYYY to small
Sounds like someone didnt copy the .mil file
-
they work perfect for me. I really like the one listed fot the Corsair.
-
Bustr and BluBerry,
Thank you both for all you do!
Bustr, I can't tell you how much I appreciate the research you have put into your gunsight packs. They embellish the game hugely. I use your gunsights whenever I can.
But certain sights like the Japanese are so cluttered I have a hard time seeing through them. This is not your fault. Maybe the historic Japanese sights don't translate well from a 3D world to a 2D world, or maybe they were hard to see through in real life also. In any case, my aging eyes often can't find the target through the Japanese sights well enough to get a guns solution unless I'm point blank, so I had been using your historic Spitfire XVI sight instead. Blasphemy using a Spit sight in a N1K2! That really bothered me :lol
So I have switched to a BluBerry gunsight that I really like in the case where I can't see through a historic sight. The BluBerry sight I use is not psychedelic, it is a very practical austere gunsight that is very intuitive and I prefer using it over putting British sights in Japanese planes or some other form of historic blasphemy :lol
I hope you both will continue your work, Bustr in keeping us aligned with history as closely as possible, and BluBerry offering custom sights to suit specific needs/preferences :)
-
shoresroad,
Did you try increasing the transparency of the Japanese sight?
-
Karnak,
How do you do that? I don't know anything about graphics or modifying images.
Thanks!
-
There is an opaque slider where you set your gun sight on the clipboard. When slide to the right, the gun sight gets lighter, to the the left darker.
-
There is an opaque slider where you set your gun sight on the clipboard. When slide to the right, the gun sight gets lighter, to the the left darker.
Yup. I set all of my gunsights to about 50%.
-
Yup. I set all of my gunsights to about 50%.
On the default gun sights, 50% here too. On Bustr's like my favorite Mk8 series I use about 25% after I get use to it will probably slide it closer to 50%.
-
As I said there is no right gunsight in this game.
I just noticed some years back no one knew much of anything about the real reticles other than generically how some of the more common across several air simms looked or agrred by consensus they looked. No history, very little on the technology, or what the real sizes were for most. Very few had ever seen a real one with the lamp on or even a photograph. For something so prominent in the game to a player's outcomes, we "all" knew almost zilch.
If you load the MkII 105Mil gunsight into your spit16 then zoom the gunsight until the ring is about 2.25 inches in diameter measured on your screen with a ruler. That's the real life size of the reticle. But, then you can only see whats in your limited forward view. If you try to use some of the historical gunsights always unzoomed, they are useless and will clutter your aimpoint. But, if you zoom in some of those Japanese gunsights. The structures are easy to see through and make use of like they were for the real pilots. The average fixed cockpit gunsight was 16.5 - 18 inches from the pilots face.
The reticles in the IJA Type3(Ki84) and Type100(Ki43) are carried over from the early Type89 tube gunsight. Funny everyone's early tube gunsight reticles were 30Mil - 35Mil and the first reflector gunsight reticles for many countries were 30Mil or 35Mil. Or your sight image down the tube. The Type89 reticles were increased to 100Mil because that was the optical width allowance in the license copied Oigee and Zeiss Relfexvisier gunsights giving the pilot snap shooting lead judgment ability. The IJN gunsight(s) Type98, the reticle was a carry over from the Type95 tube gunsight and the reticle looks a lot like the very complex Type98Mk2. And the reflector gunsights were licensed copies of Zeiss Reflexvisior Revi2 and ReviC12. Again 100Mil max reticle due to the reticle lense diameter holder.
This is why the American N-3 could only be increased to 70Mil because the reticle mounting barrel was the limitation in the device body. The N9 has such a large diameter bore specifically because the AAF's requirement was for a 101Mil reticle due to the faster speeds of enemy fighters. At least the NAVY was smart early on and chose the Barr&Stroud MkII which could hold a 100Mil reticle. We know that as the NAVY Mk8.
The game limits reticles with complex structures in the default FoV mode unless you are willing to use zoom for the money shot. Ultimately that's why a "cross and ring" or "ring and dot"(default.bmp) or simply a large dot makes the most sense while you use the gunsight glass to judge lead.
Then there are the pesky WW2 manuals, and on zoom the game physics allows you to use the reticles like the manuals say they will work to make your money shots.
-
There is an opaque slider where you set your gun sight on the clipboard. When slide to the right, the gun sight gets lighter, to the the left darker.
Got it! Thanks, this will be very helpful :aok
-
Since I found a picture of the L3 gunsight and posted a proper P38L Lynn L3 gunsight with rocket aiming aid. I'm making this one come back for one iteration to make the historic pack download available.
-
That's great. I will watch for your update.
-
Personally....I'm with Bustr.... it's a shame that gunsights dont have to be approved by HTC like everything else.
ONLY historic gunsights should be allowed... just like everything else in the game. Research, war usage... etc ...should apply.
Any sight not used in the War <just like planes,tanks..etc> should be 86ed.
Thanks for all your hard work Bustr
-
Personally....I'm with Bustr.... it's a shame that gunsights dont have to be approved by HTC like everything else.
ONLY historic gunsights should be allowed... just like everything else in the game. Research, war usage... etc ...should apply.
Any sight not used in the War <just like planes,tanks..etc> should be 86ed.
Thanks for all your hard work Bustr
I agree. Once the collection is complete then maybe it might go over. I think it would interesting to see the right sight in the right plane. i would hope the slider would stay.