Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: bustr on August 21, 2013, 05:50:42 PM
-
Agent360 and again Randy1 have reminded me I can be too much like Data from Star Trek, when it comes to the facts and data associated to the fun of this game. Since I've had a preoccupation with gunsights for these past several years, I have it appears, to have gone "gunsighty" and lost some perspective.
It may not be good when the first thing I catch myself doing looking at cockpit screen shots is analyzing the reticle in the reflector plate. Unfailingly for the Mil diameter, bombing\rocket aids, and distance to the con by the relationship of it's wingspan to the reticle. In our game we don't have to learn everything pilots in ww2 did about their gunsight's relationship to their weapons to have fun.
What is a gunsight(reticle) to you in this game?
1. - A semi aimbot device?
2. - Point here, pull trigger, go boom?
3. - A result of personal effort to add your personal touch to your game experience?
4. - An additional touch to the historical emersion factor?
5. - An attempt to understand the technological reasons and use of the reticle's structures related to the ballistics of the guns, bombs and rockets?
6. - Don't care, gets in the way, don't load one, just shoot from real close. Muwahaahha I own all your sheep!!
-
Primarily 4, but with a touch of 2 and 5.
-
I wish it was #1, but I'm getting mine closer to #2. Immersion isn't that important to me. I want to be able to hit the target after I have out flown my opponent. Still miss too much.
-
Agent360 and again Randy1 have reminded me I can be too much like Data from Star Trek, when it comes to the facts and data associated to the fun of this game. Since I've had a preoccupation with gunsights for these past several years, I have it appears, to have gone "gunsighty" and lost some perspective.
It may not be good when the first thing I catch myself doing looking at cockpit screen shots is analyzing the reticle in the reflector plate. Unfailingly for the Mil diameter, bombing\rocket aids, and distance to the con by the relationship of it's wingspan to the reticle. In our game we don't have to learn everything pilots in ww2 did about their gunsight's relationship to their weapons to have fun.
What is a gunsight(reticle) to you in this game?
1. - A semi aimbot device?
2. - Point here, pull trigger, go boom?
3. - A result of personal effort to add your personal touch to your game experience?
4. - An additional touch to the historical emersion factor?
5. - An attempt to understand the technological reasons and use of the reticle's structures related to the ballistics of the guns, bombs and rockets?
6. - Don't care, gets in the way, don't load one, just shoot from real close. Muwahaahha I own all your sheep!!
For me it's 1, 2, 4, and 5.
ack-ack
-
Oddly enough, most of my kills are made looking over the nose of my aircraft. When im not going for a deflection shot , Its mainly 1-4, sometimes 5
-
I use the "TLAR" sighting system myself, so I guess its no. 2.
https://vimeo.com/65754842
-
I have no clue whatsoever how to use a gunsight. I know some include mil markings to judge range but we've got that 40 foot neon sign that tells us that anyway. Plus in most of my turn fights the target plane isn't even visible; it's below the nose of my plane so I can't see how a gunsight is useful there. So I guess I'm 2, 4, or 6.
-
When I first started, a gun sight that made e a better shooter was what I was looking for. Then I thoght every plane I tried should have exactly the same gun sight for constancy.
Now, I want to see it as it was historically or some approximation within the limits of the game. That is why I downloaded your wonderful historic package. Just plain neat.
-
I am pretty much #2 only. Great video Gsholz, my sight is nearly identical to yours, just not illuminated and maybe 1/3 smaller. Care to hooketh upith with that sight?
My gunsight is a very tiny dot in all aircraft, as I don't drop bombs. In most aircraft I can't even see my tiny dot as I have the seat cranked all the way up, and use a very very small dot on my middle monitor with a marker. I want my view of the target as clear as possible, without all kinds of crazy useless lines and graduations all over like I'm looking through a Russian sniper optic. Now that I'm using trackIR now and then while flying, my dot sight from HTC is coming back into view a lot. This is poop IMO, and why I switch tIR off most of the time once the scrapping starts.
I can understand how some guys want a realistic sight, or a sight with cues for dropping bombs or long range a2a gunnery with the B25 or 410 long bomb rounds. Some of the illuminated reticules sure look cool and very realistic, just game wise, they interfere with how I aim and play.
-
4, 5, 2; in that order :old:
LtngRydr
-
Gman,
You are looking at a 18 to 22 pixel diameter ring made with a white or light cyan 5 to 7 pixel wide line. After the ring is pulled a gradient blur is run against it until the center only shows just a bit lighter than the whole dot against darker backgrounds.
Up in the backlit sky it looks like an internal lit large glowing dot like the three below I cranked out in about 5 minutes. You can use any color. The darker on the gunsight mask the lighter it shows in the game. The reflector plate is a very dark gray which shows up as tinted glass to you in the cockpit. The lighter a color it looks like it's self illuminating. If you gradient a lighter color you get that bright led effect like my screen shots from this evening. The illumination is an effect of the lighting function from the game related to the background you place the gunsight over. Some players like an obvious lighter center some don't until held over a dark target object.
We make way too much of a secret about these things in this game for some reason.
Very light cyan almost white. 18 pixel diameter, 5 pixel wide line, heavy blur.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img35/5538/qyo.gif)
Cyan, 22 pixel diameter 7 pixel wide line heavy blur.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img189/9989/cxb.gif)
Red blurred into a light red dot.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img547/6108/qrnf.gif)
-
I am pretty much #2 only. Great video Gsholz, my sight is nearly identical to yours, just not illuminated and maybe 1/3 smaller. Care to hooketh upith with that sight?
My gunsight is a very tiny dot in all aircraft, as I don't drop bombs. In most aircraft I can't even see my tiny dot as I have the seat cranked all the way up, and use a very very small dot on my middle monitor with a marker. I want my view of the target as clear as possible, without all kinds of crazy useless lines and graduations all over like I'm looking through a Russian sniper optic. Now that I'm using trackIR now and then while flying, my dot sight from HTC is coming back into view a lot. This is poop IMO, and why I switch tIR off most of the time once the scrapping starts.
I can understand how some guys want a realistic sight, or a sight with cues for dropping bombs or long range a2a gunnery with the B25 or 410 long bomb rounds. Some of the illuminated reticules sure look cool and very realistic, just game wise, they interfere with how I aim and play.
I use SlapShot's old sight.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/SlapShot_default_alpha.bmp)
I like the sight to be a very clear dot in my peripheral vision so that I can keep my eyes on the target and still see where my guns are pointing. I never really look at the sight itself.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/SlapShotSight.zip
-
I use an ultra small dot as default to shoot and divebomb.
To me the gunsight is just a vague référence of where the center is. IMO using a detailed gunsight as an absolute référence is a bad idea on the long term. Feel the guns, don't aim with them.
-
I love the Revil16, a wonderful chappy called NrShida emailed me a copy of "schiessfibel" to help me use it.
So it could be said 1, 4 and 5
-
If I'm flying my Ki-84 I don't use a gunsight at all.
You're just into precise detail Bustr. No problem with that unless it hinders other areas of your life. You don't have a Ray Finkle altar to gunsights do you? :eek:
-
Iv'e always used the gunsight that I got from BluBerry. It gets the job done and looks cool. Point & click.
-
I pretty much ignore the gunsight except in planes that have rockets or a long range cannon.
-
#2 - I use the same sight in everything. I know that subconsciously my brain logs info on lead and target size in relation to the sight so I keep it consistent. All I consciously use is the pipper. As Bustr's squaddie I know that specific sights can be a great asset for specific weapons but I like my plain old dot and ring.
-
I used to just use a dot, as about all I was interested in was where the bullet stream was going and really didn't like clutter.
I read several of Bustr's posts about the 100 mil rings, and it started me thinking about stuff. I downloaded his pack and have found them to be a huge asset on .50 equipped planes in particular. It gives a pretty decent indicator for approximate lead on certain shots that crop up often enough.
The historical aspect of them is a nice side bonus.
I'd put it somewhere along the lines of wishing for 1, 2, 4, 5 for me.
Wiley.
-
If I'm flying my Ki-84 I don't use a gunsight at all.
You're just into precise detail Bustr. No problem with that unless it hinders other areas of your life. You don't have a Ray Finkle altar to gunsights do you? :eek:
You need to get your Ace Ventura detective story correct for the audience.
Finkle's mother is senile, and his father is a suspicious, shotgun-wielding old man who confides to Ace that his son was put into a mental institution in Tampa after his career ended; Finkle later escaped from the institution and is still at large. Finkle's bedroom contains a shrine-like construction declaring his extreme hatred of Dan Marino, whom he blamed for the missed field goal due to mishandling the snap.
--------------------------------
Nrshida,
Not really. My wife's opinion is I have a compulsive fixation on reducing BS down to it's simplest constituents so anyone can accomplish the task. I've outsourced myself out of a few jobs by rendering the arcane into the simplistic by which my employer subsequently replaced me with lower cost workers with simplified scripts. They were very happy and confided that they had always thought my profession was simpler than some of us made it look for what we were being paid. Ooopsie......or as my wife sometimes teases me. Honey you are one dumb smart person. She still won't let me live down that I once thought Saturday the 25th was a good day for my team to get ahead on a project at work and scheduled it without looking at the calendar...... :headscratch:
-
You need to get your Ace Ventura detective story correct for the audience.
Finkle's mother is senile, and his father is a suspicious, shotgun-wielding old man who confides to Ace that his son was put into a mental institution in Tampa after his career ended; Finkle later escaped from the institution and is still at large. Finkle's bedroom contains a shrine-like construction declaring his extreme hatred of Dan Marino, whom he blamed for the missed field goal due to mishandling the snap.
See there you go again. My analogy was broad and humorous and you corrected it with considerable detail that isn't relevant to the amusing imagery of a portion of your house being dedicated to reticule sights and mills :rofl
Have you ever considered taking an art class. Impressionistic or abstract painting would do you good. No small paintbrushes allowed! :mad:
Not really. My wife's opinion is I have a compulsive fixation on reducing BS down to it's simplest constituents so anyone can accomplish the task. I've outsourced myself out of a few jobs by rendering the arcane into the simplistic by which my employer subsequently replaced me with lower cost workers with simplified scripts. They were very happy and confided that they had always thought my profession was simpler than some of us made it look for what we were being paid. Ooopsie......or as my wife sometimes teases me. Honey you are one dumb smart person. She still won't let me live down that I once thought Saturday the 25th was a good day for my team to get ahead on a project at work and scheduled it without looking at the calendar...... :headscratch:
That's a talent, just misapplied. Remember what Einstein allegedly said about simplicity...
-
Untill 1989 I supported myself with tsukamaki, shira-zaya, and habaki. My agent was Cary Condell of Condell & CO. Ltd. late of San Francisco 1948-2011. A member of the NCJSC and Asian antiquities broker.
Yes I have taken up an art which required attention to detail and made a living at it. To kill a little time I taught myself to facet gemstones. Wanna loose your mind and eye sight? Do the pavilion of a "Portugese Cut" in a stone under 10mm.
I simply answered with a funny story and a broader inclusion for our audience as my reply rather than with the angle of the dangle. Or an obscure reference with a meaning with in a meaning to describe a person not normal without being Moded by Hitech. Or we could speak in the language of flowers and be very Victorian and obscure with our exchange.
My wife enjoys the corner on the making fun of me market visa obscure inferences. She could give you some lessons.
-
My wife enjoys the corner on the making fun of me market visa obscure inferences. She could give you some lessons.
I'm only joking around Bustr, apologies if I have upset you.
-
To me, most of the time it's just something that gets in the way, thus I'm using the Dot'o'Death most of the time.
The only time I'm actually taking advantage of marks beyond the 'center dot' is when flying the Me 410 and on the rear gunner station in the B-29
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/P-47_gun_harmonization_1945_page_35.jpg)
This chart makes a lot of the gun sight lines and such make more sense to me.
-
Agent360 and again Randy1 have reminded me I can be too much like Data from Star Trek, when it comes to the facts and data associated to the fun of this game. Since I've had a preoccupation with gunsights for these past several years, I have it appears, to have gone "gunsighty" and lost some perspective.
It may not be good when the first thing I catch myself doing looking at cockpit screen shots is analyzing the reticle in the reflector plate. Unfailingly for the Mil diameter, bombing\rocket aids, and distance to the con by the relationship of it's wingspan to the reticle. In our game we don't have to learn everything pilots in ww2 did about their gunsight's relationship to their weapons to have fun.
What is a gunsight(reticle) to you in this game?
1. - A semi aimbot device?
2. - Point here, pull trigger, go boom?
3. - A result of personal effort to add your personal touch to your game experience?
4. - An additional touch to the historical emersion factor?
5. - An attempt to understand the technological reasons and use of the reticle's structures related to the ballistics of the guns, bombs and rockets?
6. - Don't care, gets in the way, don't load one, just shoot from real close. Muwahaahha I own all your sheep!!
4, 5 2 in that order. My personal fav, and really the only one I use. Is the P51k gunsight.
Tinkles
<<S>>
-
Bustr,
You forgot 7, point and pray!
that's how I use my gunsight,I point and pray some rounds hit what I'm pointing at. :furious
:salute
-
jeffdn: I don't understand your picture. It shows all of the bullets hitting below the sight pip, no matter what range. I thought when gun harmonization is done it includes both horizontal and vertical (i.e. gravity drop). Is this not the case in 1) reality and 2) Aces High?
-
jeffdn: I don't understand your picture. It shows all of the bullets hitting below the sight pip, no matter what range. I thought when gun harmonization is done it includes both horizontal and vertical (i.e. gravity drop). Is this not the case in 1) reality and 2) Aces High?
It does, but it corresponds to the position of the guns on the plane, the trajectory of the rounds fired, etc. The size of the P-47 means that the pipper is several feet above the guns, and the flat trajectory of the .50 AN/M2 means that the bullets don't have to arc as much.
-
It does, but it corresponds to the position of the guns on the plane, the trajectory of the rounds fired, etc. The size of the P-47 means that the pipper is several feet above the guns, and the flat trajectory of the .50 AN/M2 means that the bullets don't have to arc as much.
Oh. So it doesn't have parallax correction built in?
-
The diagram is from the AAF, Manual for Fighter Gun Harmonization, 200-1, 30 January 1945.
Harmonization was accomplished with the understanding that as your rounds went out along their ballistic arc. They also described an average 4Mil diameter dispersion ring at any distance to 2000ft(666yds). Or the AAF tested AtoA max effective distance for ww2 air combat.
The gunsight view line or center line was aligned to the horizontal convergence point in a Hi, Mid or Low orientation after the IP point, convergence point, and dispersion pattern was achieved at the targeted distance. Essentially by design never having the bullet stream pass above the sight line other than by dispersion, as we see accurately depicted in the game.
When you look at the diagram you can see why the most common shooting mistake for 47 pilots in the game is shooting too low before the harmonization point. And needing experienced skill to hold the stream steady for the kill at the convergence point or past while closing into a target. The guns are almost 5ft below the gunsight center line. At distance small variations in vertical AoA translate into large motions and misses. But, then the rendering of those dispersion clouds was to show the advantages of the dispersion as a shotgun making random hits very likely inside of that 4Mil circle at distance.
The same manual from which this P47 diagram comes from has a second one for the P47 showing convergence set with all guns crossing at the same point along with diagrams for the P38, P39, P40, P51B and P51D. It has data tables for the common rounds of the period 50cal to 75mm relative to drop at range, time to target, air speed, alt and air density. This was so the armorer could manually calculate bore sighting targets with convergence and gunsight line of sight.
Hitech's convergence application standardizes this process. One gun or pair of guns is tied to the gunsight line of sight. Either the LoS is fixed and as you pull the convergence in or out, the IP is at the LoS for that range. Or the LoS changes slightly like with the MK108 in the K4 due to it's radical ballistics. Offline, fly auto level in the K4 at 307ias, 1000ft. Have the cannon set to 150. Pull up the offline target at 437yd(400m). The center of your gunsight pipper will be about 11ft below the red horizontal line on the target. Each ring is 10ft wide. And so to your 30Mil dispersion cloud will be generally around that same point if you tap several rounds and not hold down on the trigger.
So all of you engine mounted nose cannon guys. If you are into realism, pull your nose cannon into 150, and learn to shoot "ww2 style". Changes the game realism factor a bit.
Hmmm, wonder why Hitech doesn't lock all internal engine nose cannon(Daimler-Benz, Junkers Jumo) to 150 at least. They were not adjustable in real life due to the tube inserted through the engine block that the cannon was then inserted into. Only the hood MG, gondola, and wing root cannon. Yak gunsights were pre adjusted to 200m(218yd) with a mark on the back of the prop to allow the pilot to check for that convergence alignment. Ergo, the LoS would be slightly down to a point 200m passing through the expected ballistic drop point of the 20mm round at 200m from engine level. Inches below the red horizontal line on the offline target at 218yds.
From the Bf109-G6/U4/Wa single MK108 handbook.
Gunsight line at 400m(437yds) -11ft
MK108 IP at 400m(437yds) -11ft
In Hitech we trust, pass the ammo.......
-
I too just use the dot o' death The others seem overly cluttered for me. I have my head position so the dot is just at the top of the sight reticle.
-
HTC allows convergence settings for centerline guns for reason of "vertical convergence".
Remember, we're talking about 2 axis here.
-
2. - Point here, pull trigger, go boom
-
4, 2 and 5, in that order.
-
ice,
The PBP LoS is fixed slightly down. The green line for the ShVAK slides along it to adjust it's vertical convergence point relative to that junction.
Why do you think over the years I've constantly bored you guys to death telling you to fly offline at the IAS speed that levels the engine line to the red horizontal line of the target? Then shoot at every 50 yards starting at 100 to 650. Then keep record of the relationship of the reticle center to the target horizontal center line and then the relationship of your IP point to both that line and your reticle center point. In effect your armorer did on paper that when he bore sighted your guns, then adjusted your gunsight to that pattern.
I gave up supplying Boresight.bmp with my Historic packages with it's Mil rule crosshairs(2.5, 5, 10) to perform exactly that testing. It's inspired by a gauge used to center AAF gunsights after the guns were adjusted to the harmonization target created from the data in the AAF Manual 200-1. I realized too late I should have provided a Mil at distance plug in calculator to reduce the results to feet at hundreds of yards at the onset of supplying the tool.
I may have caused more confusion than helped since, 4Mil @ 200yds is smaller than 4Mil @ 600yds.
-
4.
Basically use the historically or near historically correct gunsights on all the planes (sans bombers)
most of the time I don't need the sight, but it helps in super high speed/high deflection stuff.
-
4
-
where do I get a gunsight Package download?
-
"you don't need all that #!#! just stick a piece of gum on the window and your good to go" -Gabby Gabreski
I subscribe to the gabby philosophy of less is more.
wimple dot or a dot with a ring around it is plentry.
-
2
-
Gabby Gabreski had the 56th use British MkII because they were superior to AAF N-3 for lead shooting because of the very large ring. Nearly all AAF fighters reaching depots in England had their N-3 thrown in piles and replaced with MkII. P47 pilots long after the Mk8 was standard equipment up to the K14 becoming the default in bubble canopy deliveries and field mods. Stayed with their MkII. All of the 56th cockpit photos from WW2 I find, they have a MkII under the hood. I find the same in P51 and P40 photos that passed through depots in England.
Some of the source for the Gabreski chewing gum legend.
World War II came to an end and Gabreski resumed his flying career, but now as a USAF test pilot. Eventually he found employment with The Douglas Aircraft Corporation, but this was only temporary, as a new war had come on the scene. Korea! Gabby returned to serve the USAF, this time as ‘Lieutenant-Colonel Gabreski’ – commanding officer of an F-86 Sabre squadron. According to legend, Gabreski was not familiar with the more modern gunsight and chose instead to rely on a piece of chewing gum stuck on the windscreen. In spite of this minor obstacle, the World War II veteran scored no less than six and a half MiG-15 kills during the Korean War. This meant that Gabby had become one of a handful of pilots to achieve ‘ace’ status in both World War II and in Korea.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems Gabreski had problems with the early active lead computing gunsights. More of the source for the chewing gum legend.
The A-1C(M) gunsight: a case study of technological innovation in the United States Air Force.
The A-1C(M) lead-computing sight was the first fighter gunsight to employ radar ranging. It was widely used in Korea where it received a mixed reception by the F-86 pilots who depended upon it. Many of the younger, less experienced pilots found it a godsend, while the veterans, particularly some aces of World War II, considered it unreliable and much too complicated--particularly its radar. Nevertheless, the introduction of the A-1C gunsight was an important milestone in the development of sophisticated fire control equipment for air-to-air combat.
The story of the A-1C provides evidence of the importance of the heterogeneous engineer in developing new technology and the impact of "innovative departure" on the users of a new weapons system. It also provides insight into the non-technical problems that often arise when a new weapons system is introduced.
Jump to Gabreski's challenge of the A-4. A-4 is the A-1C with all of the bugs worked out and enabled higher Saber kills than Mig in Korea. And the chewing gum legend
Col. Francis S. "Gabby" Gabreski, considered by many to be a "fighter pilot's pilot," was the senior member of the team. (48) He was flamboyant, heroic, and had been the leading U.S. fighter ace in the European Theatre during World War II. In June 1951, Gabreski, then in command of the 56th Fighter Interceptor Wing, was posted to Korea. He flew 123 missions in the F-86E and was credited with an additional 6 1/2 MiGs, making him one of only six U.S. Air Force pilots to have achieved the distinction of becoming an ace in both conflicts.
But Gabreski has been chastised for ignoring his wingmen. He flew the fastest aircraft available and would not respond when wingmen could not keep up. (49) He was also criticized for a lack of discipline among his off-duty pilots, and for allegedly encouraging exaggerated kill claims.
Gabreski did not like the A-1C sight. He often claimed that he "could do better with a piece of chewing gum in the windshield," which he may have used in place of the A-1C on more than one occasion. (50) He came to Eglin to prove that the K-14 would show much better results. (51) During the flying portion of the project, Gabreski, using the K-14, was paired against Col. James K. Johnson, using the A-4. Johnson, called "Rabbit" because of his quickness as a pilot, was one of the test pilots chosen to replace two of the original test team selectees who had not arrived in time for the fly off. He had yet to fly in Korea where he would become a double ace, but he was an experienced combat veteran of World War II.
Before taking off, Johnson asked Gabreski where he wanted the pipper to be. He had to badger the unresponsive ace for an answer. Gabreski finally said, "Just put the pipper on the cockpit!" (52) Johnson was an extremely smooth pilot who made good use of the A-4. When the gun camera films came back, almost every frame showed Johnson's pipper right on Gabreski's cockpit.
When Gabreski's turn came to be the attacker he told Johnson to "hold it" so that he could bore sight the camera that was rigged through the K-14. As soon as he was lined up on Johnson's tail he triggered the gun camera and radioed "fights on." When Gabreski's film was developed Johnson's tail pipe was in the center of the first few frames, after that, all you saw was sky, because Gabreski was not able to get in another shot at Johnson once he started to maneuver defensively. (53)
------------------------------------------------------------
One of the issues with K14 in jets was the higher E load reached faster that locked up the gyros or moved the pipper out of sight do to not having a maximum deflection range limiter. Same problem happened in ww2 with the K14, you either dmaged the gyros or got the 6-star back functioning when you let up on E load. The next generation A-1 to A-4of radar enhanced guns sights for the F86 in Korea addressed that issue. Robert Johnson probably knew this and made a fool out of Gabreski to prove that point.
Boots Blesse said this about the Korean War family derivatives of the K14 first used in the F86. And where Gabreski may have been forced to use chewing gum.
"The earlier gunsights had a pipper in them and if you didn’t have this range limiter to set, the pipper would go off the screen when you turned sharply, and it wouldn’t display, because you needed more lead than it could give you. Until you backed off on the "G’s," the pipper wouldn't come back. Well you can’t do that in a fight. So that wasn’t very useful to us."
Doing all of the research on ww2 gunsight technology so I could create the historic reticles. Returned mountains of modern day fallacies accepted as history. And in our game we compound them x1000 many times because we take them for face value and distribute and defend them as gospel.
-
2 and 4