Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Jed on February 15, 2014, 01:51:35 PM
-
5o calibers tickle. While anything with cannons rips sections of planes apart. There seems To be a slight despairity between the two. I would wish that the 5o caliber damage gets a small boost. I will await the usual bashers of every post. But they do seem to lack the punch historically written about
-
But they do seem to lack the punch historically written about
Dunno, mine shred any enemy planes. Else I wouldn't use the P-51B (4x 0,50) as one of my standard buff hunters :old:
-
Actually IMHO the .50 effectiveness in AH is overrated...
Since when 8x.50cal can rip off a bomber wing easily? .50 cal was maybe fine against fighters (especially Japanese) it was by no means as good as it is in AH against Buffs.
If you take some other WW2 games like IL2 you'll discover that .50 cal is quite a pea shooter (but that is different story)
It isn't by a chance that US fighters only carriers .50 cal through the WW2, while British, German, Japanese and Russian fighters carried canons.
It isn't by a chance that in Korea it was discovered that .50 cal has an absolutely inadequate firepower.
-
5o calibers tickle. While anything with cannons rips sections of planes apart. There seems To be a slight despairity between the two. I would wish that the 5o caliber damage gets a small boost. I will await the usual bashers of every post. But they do seem to lack the punch historically written about
I have absolutely no issues with the 50 cal. It all depends on where you aim.
I recall there was a post that had a link to a video of a 20mm and a 30mm doing damage to a barrel or a 'parked' spitfire. Does anyone have that link here? It was some serious damage compared to the 50cal.
-
Actually IMHO the .50 effectiveness in AH is overrated...
Since when 8x.50cal can rip off a bomber wing easily?
It cannot even now. The problem is with your use of the word 'easily.' It takes considerable weight of fire to knock any bomber wing off. You cannot call that 'easy.'
-
See rule #4
-
Per the United States Navy in the 1940s, not a particularly biased organization, a single Hispano 20mm installation was provided the same destructiveness as a triple Browning .50 installation, in other words ten rounds per second of Hispano 20mm was as good as thirty-six rounds per minute of .50 cal.
Aces High is pretty close to that, so no, the .50 damage does not need to be increased.
-
5o calibers tickle. While anything with cannons rips sections of planes apart.
Put your convergence at and shoot at 300 until every plane melts in front of you.
Might take some control and patience to only shoot from 300 or less. Once you get that wired then experiment with setting them back out.
-
.50s are fine, i have no problem sawing off wings at 800 out with .50s
-
5o calibers tickle. While anything with cannons rips sections of planes apart. There seems To be a slight despairity between the two. I would wish that the 5o caliber damage gets a small boost. I will await the usual bashers of every post. But they do seem to lack the punch historically written about
Go offline and shoot down the drones from varying distances until you get the hang of the trajectory. Then turn tracers off and try it again, if you miss often then turn them back on until you get good with them on.
If you fly different planes that use the 50 cal (f4f, f6f, f4u, p51, p47 etc), then make sure you are using the same gunsight, so you learn where on the gunsight the target as to be at different angles/distances.
At first I thought the same, then I did the above, and I kill stuff with little issue anymore :)
Now if I could only get back online :furious
:salute
-
The .50's work fine for me too. I set all guns to the same convergence.
The only gripe I kind of have is the accuracy and damage of a 30mm shot to the rear half of a 38. It's the only round that seems to consistently destroy the entire rear set regardless of where it hits behind the cockpit. 30mm to the left rudder? Both booms are removed. 30mm to the left boom? Both booms are removed.
-
Put your convergence at and shoot at 300 until every plane melts in front of you.
Might take some control and patience to only shoot from 300 or less. Once you get that wired then experiment with setting them back out.
^^^
That!
I used to have my convergences at 400 in my planes, but I was pulling the trigger at 200-300. My shots were not grouped together so it took quite a bit to kill a plane. Then I change my convergence to 300 and I took shots at 300. Now I can down a plane with just a short burst even from a P-51B.
-
convergence is your friend
-
In real life the biggest killer of aeroplanes was fire, in AH the biggest killer is dismemberment. I think that's reason for the leathality gap between machineguns and cannon in AH.
Fly something that has weaker guns than .50 browning for a week or two, after that 50 cals will seem like magic.
-
No way, several times my D9 got ripped appart at 1000m(!) : already damn powerfull !
5o calibers tickle. While anything with cannons rips sections of planes apart. There seems To be a slight despairity between the two. I would wish that the 5o caliber damage gets a small boost. I will await the usual bashers of every post. But they do seem to lack the punch historically written about
-
My convergence is already at 300, and I respectfully disagree
-
In real life the biggest killer of aeroplanes was fire, in AH the biggest killer is dismemberment. I think that's reason for the leathality gap between machineguns and cannon in AH.
The gap is actually a little bit smaller in AH than the US Navy said it was in WWII.
People, for whatever reason, just cannot accept that 20mm cannons are really that much better than 12.7mm machine guns.
-
Fly a Mk. 1 Hurricane for a day and then go back to any .50 cal armed plane. Night and day.even the little ki43 will eat folks alive with only a pair and good convergence and shot placement.
-
I set the P47, eight gun package at 325, all other 50 cal packages at 300. The P38 without canon is pretty good but without an alt advantage closing to 300 is the problem with so many faster planes in the game. So you have to pick those that have slowed down.
Closing too 300 is good advice if you can close.
-
People, for whatever reason, just cannot accept that 20mm cannons are really that much better than 12.7mm machine guns.
I think it is a part of the culture... USA players think that US planes like P-51D are the best AH planes... British would say the Spitfire XIV or XVI is the best, German would likely select 109K or 190D (or Me 262 which was truly significant) and of course Russian would favor the La-7 or Yak-3.
It is a part of the ethos we all were grown on.
And each of them would be right in his own unique way.
There are many stories about how effective the 6x.50' cal was... Because it was the weapon of USAF and it was effective in its context mostly because USAF hadn't have to deal with bombers and was able to achieve air superiority.
You can't have a game with 90% US player base and not have the .50' cal to be as good as possible. However you should remember that stories tend to favor thous who was on the winning side...
-
I believe the .50 cal damage is modeled based on kinetic energy. Using generic .50 cal ballistics from a stationary rifle, the kinetic energy drops in half somewhere around 600 yards. The same round fired from a moving plane will loose energy at a different rate, but not sure how much different compared to stationary.
When I first started I used to shoot at long range with the .50 cal armed planes and was somewhat frustrated by the apparent lack of damage produced. Per suggestions from some old timers I reduced the convergence and began shooting at shorter ranges. The combination of more bullets hitting (due to shooting at convergence) and the shorter range (more damage produced due to higher ke) made a big difference for me.
-
When I said machine guns I wasn't just talking about 50cals. When the incendiary effects are neutered then the only factor left is destructive force, that gives both 50cals and cannon a distinct advantage.
-
I think it is a part of the culture... USA players think that US planes like P-51D are the best AH planes... British would say the Spitfire XIV or XVI is the best, German would likely select 109K or 190D (or Me 262 which was truly significant) and of course Russian would favor the La-7 or Yak-3.
It is a part of the ethos we all were grown on.
And each of them would be right in his own unique way.
There are many stories about how effective the 6x.50' cal was... Because it was the weapon of USAF and it was effective in its context mostly because USAF hadn't have to deal with bombers and was able to achieve air superiority.
You can't have a game with 90% US player base and not have the .50' cal to be as good as possible. However you should remember that stories tend to favor thous who was on the winning side...
I'm US and I fly German planes mostly :)
Some of my relatives who have watched me play Aces High have commented on the 50 cal, sometimes when bombers would take so many hits or fighters even. Then another relative would bring up how bombers would land frequently with quite a few parts missing. It was quite the debate at my house!
At first I thought it wasn't 'up to the fame' up the real life 50 cal. Then I got good at it, and that changed my perspective drastically. If you know where to aim, you can kill enemies with a handful of rounds. I recall getting a kill on a seafire in my f6f when I had less than 20 rounds left, got the pilot. I'm sitting there screaming my head off on VOX.. only to remember my mic didn't work! :lol
:salute
-
Many excellent points brought up....
-
If a 50 cal hits penetrates a wing spar the wing will be weakened enough to snap off.
-
Sounds to me like someone needs to go Pony Bravo flying. All guns set to 300. When you can get +5 kills every run go back to 6 or 8 50cals and laugh at yourself.
It is the best gunnery platform in game IMO.
-
My convergence is already at 300, and I respectfully disagree
250 is the magic setting info source pulled from a ww2 combat pilot in a
I was at 300 until hearing about this interview switched to 250 noticed they sliced like butta!
But play ur own game
-
I set 50s way out because they are the longest ranged commonly found gun in the game and use them to tickle people at d1000 into turning.
The only convergence "merging" I work on is in the vertical and try to make sure the bullets are grouped at both long range and medium range.
Super close range shooting on a long convergence setup doesn't seem to be a problem.
-
First, if you gents accept Hitech uses the physics for the various guns in our aircraft right out of the manuals. Then here is what the AN\M2 .50 cal in American fighters is limited by.
By 1200ft or 400yds, the round has lost 2\3 of it's kinetic penetration ability. By 1200ft the drop due to gravity and air resistance is 4ft. Beyond 1200ft because of the rounds slow down, gravity, and dispersion makes the round inaccurate the farther past 1200ft it goes. Between 1200 and 1600 the drop is to 6ft with increasing dispersion. It will be a given that individuals can adjust to this with their convergence set out beyond 333yds. That means they have a knack inside of 400 to focusing the stream from one wing as their primary onto a con at close range.
But, since this is a general discussion and we are not all waving the looky here I'm an exception to a rule flag. This conversation begs to what players in the game understand are the limitations of the AN\M2 ballistics in AtA combat. AAF fixed gunnery training beat those limitations into the pilots heads to help them not waist their efforts and lives in combat. I'm assuming the OP is looking for some general guidelines that Hitech appears to be taking directly from the WW2 manuals.
AN\M2 .50cal were harmonized generally 250-333 yards due to the kinetic, drop, and dispersion limitations by 1200ft. Gun camera footage general showed kills inside of 1200ft as the rule. WW2 was not won by looky me exceptions to the rules of physics the way we push them in our computer program.
-
If a 50 cal hits penetrates a wing spar the wing will be weakened enough to snap off.
On what airplane and what G loading?
A single spar hit at 1G loading would not break most WWII fighter's wings.
The only hit Johnnie Johnson ever took was from a head on with an Fw19o. His Spit IX took a 20mm hit to the wing spar near the wing root which caused the wing to bend back a bit and caused the Spit to be a write off, but the wing didn't fail and he flew back to base and landed normally.
-
250 is the magic setting info source pulled from a ww2 combat pilot in a
I was at 300 until hearing about this interview switched to 250 noticed they sliced like butta!
But play ur own game
Am I correct in that I think historical combat often took place at far closer ranges than we are doing in AH? I'm fairly sure I have repeatedly read and heard about historical convergences set in the 100-250yrd ranges. If that is the case in AH that is incredibly close for us. 200 and under is really really close for us. but thats still two football fields in length. Is the game by design causing us to shoot at ranges that are not really matched to historical weapons effective ranges?
-
Am I correct in that I think historical combat often took place at far closer ranges than we are doing in AH?
Probably, but then maybe not as much as one might think. There's a famous long german guncam film on the net, where before each attack sequence there's a table showing the actual firing distance vs the pilot's own estimate... almost invariably the pilots tended to underrate the distance they were firing at, often dramatically:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-TY4G99zYI
When there are distances given in parentheses, it's the pilots estimate. For example at attack #7, the pilot gives the distance as 150m to 20m, while in fact it was 700m to 150m...
-
a single Hispano 20mm installation was provided the same destructiveness as a triple Browning .50 installation,
Aces High is pretty close to that, so no, the .50 damage does not need to be increased.
By this data, a p47 with the 8 guns should have the same destructive firepower of a spit16. Last time I flew a spit, the guns were noticeably much more lethal than those on a p47. I know its anecdotal and purely subjective, but anytime there is an enemy moving laterally across my gunsight in a perfectly setup snapshot, I'm gonna want cannons. Too many times I've lit up an enemy plane from tip to tail with hit sprites; only to be rewarded with a radiator leak if I'm rewarded with anything at all.
Having said that, I don't think .50 damage needs to be upped. I think the problem is that with the damage model we have, the .50 just stops. It doesn't really go through
the plane.
Till then, cannons are better. They just are.
-
HTC says that films give them more info than we can see.
HTC could probably create a beta guncam film function to auto film every time we pull the trigger. Then ask everyone flying anything american with 50cal to use it for several sortie a tour and mail in the results. I'm not sure how they would analyze it or for what. If there were really a problem, that would be how the AAF solved it in ww2. In late 1944 and early 45 AAF guncam, you can see smoother tracking of cons in relationship to the K14 gyroscope. Earlier then that time there are more erratic rounds due to pilots calculating it all by eye. Many of us look at these films and remark that their 50cal seem to accomplish more than ours.
Is it because their average combat distances were 300 and closer? Or is our 50cal in need of adjustment? On the other hand, we are having a pretty bad winter with connection quality questionable. Over the years potency of guns posts seem to almost come around with national election events, storms, and disasters that impact the Internet infrastructure directly or indirectly by increased usage between distraught citizens.
-
Probably, but then maybe not as much as one might think. There's a famous long german guncam film on the net, where before each attack sequence there's a table showing the actual firing distance vs the pilot's own estimate... almost invariably the pilots tended to underrate the distance they were firing at, often dramatically:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-TY4G99zYI
When there are distances given in parentheses, it's the pilots estimate. For example at attack #7, the pilot gives the distance as 150m to 20m, while in fact it was 700m to 150m...
Good information for sure.
As a side note, it is interesting to see most of the attacks of the bombers are coming from the six.
-
I have frequently had parts taken off, or been pilot wounded by a single 50 cal round at 1k out. The guns are fine just the way they are.
-
Jed, what's your ingame name? I would be curious to look at your stats to better understand your request.
I personally fly the 47's most of the time, and they do quite well.
-
Jed, what's your ingame name? I would be curious to look at your stats to better understand your request.
I personally fly the 47's most of the time, and they do quite well.
ingame name is Hub - he's a great stick too
-
ingame name is Hub - he's a great stick too
It would seem... The low post count led me to wonder if he was newer, but that's clearly not it... Good K/D, good hit %...
:salute
-
My personal experience is a bit different than my squad mate's. I DO have days when I can't seem to bring down AC (other than my own) and can't really explain it. Other days, a quick deflection shot and they lose parts or just simply explode. When I am having those bad days, I generally like to believe its net lag
-
I agree with Messiah. I think the biggest issue with .50s is the damage model. Damage in AH is cumulative you have to hit one spot hard and long to do damage with .50s vs cannon. Cannon have splash damage so you don't nessecarily need to hit any particular area to break something off. A perfect example is deacking with a spit vs a jug. All the spit has to do is get close to the pit with a 20mm whereas a jug has to hit the actual gun to do any damage. The damage model, I think, puts too much emphasis on convergence for .50 armed aircraft. A standard .50 cal round will penitrate 1/4" steel at almost a mile. A Jug throws about 100 of these rounds in a second. If you get caught at convergence for a 1/4 second snap shot, that will put around 20 rounds in the same area and break stuff off. Far too often, aircraft in game fly away unscathed after turning white white hit sprites from tip to tail because of the dispersment of the ammo and the lack of cumlitive damage to any single piece. Our aircraft don't have nearly the ammount of moving parts the real counterparts did. If they did, even long range shots would wreak havoc With the aircraft. Knocking out electrical systems, punching holes in coolant lines (not just radiators), breaking control cables and pullies, breaking gauges, perforating superchargers and impellers, breaking hydraulic lines, making holes in props and breaking hinges. All these things wouldn't nessarily bring an aircraft down but would seriously degrade its ability to fight. None of this is accounted for when that aircraft flies through a waterfall of .50 cal bullets. I've fired the browning several times before. I know what that weapon is capable of and AH is not quite up to its legendary standards in my opinion.
I've said it many times on range...
I want three shots at Dale's car with a .50. It might start afterwards but if it drives more than a half mile after taking those three shots, I'll replace the car and apologize for questioning the lethality of the browning armed aircraft in game.
-
A perfect example is deacking with a spit vs a jug. All the spit has to do is get close to the pit with a 20mm whereas a jug has to hit the actual gun to do any damage.
You are comparing explosive cannon rounds with .50's.. so this is not a perfect example.
-
Probably, but then maybe not as much as one might think. There's a famous long german guncam film on the net, where before each attack sequence there's a table showing the actual firing distance vs the pilot's own estimate... almost invariably the pilots tended to underrate the distance they were firing at, often dramatically:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-TY4G99zYI
When there are distances given in parentheses, it's the pilots estimate. For example at attack #7, the pilot gives the distance as 150m to 20m, while in fact it was 700m to 150m...
I wonder if there were similar findings for Allied pilots. Reading the book "P-38 Lightning Aces of the ETO/MTO", almost all the aces in their AARs would mention firing at ranges of 200 yards or closer. If the findings for the Luftwaffe pilots were as you mentioned, then the same must be true of these P-38 aces and in reality probably fired at longer ranges then they thought they were.
ack-ack
-
I know if I try to take out the radar with an eight 50 package P47 it takes two passes. It takes one pass with the Typhoon. That is pretty much as one would think it should be. Next time out I will try the P38 and see how it compares, then a spit 16.
If i were to rate the firepower of the P38 and a P47 eight gun package, the P47 wins by a nose.
-
You are comparing explosive cannon rounds with .50's.. so this is not a perfect example.
It is a perfect example when you're comparing snapshot ability. Test it youself. With a .50 armed Jug you have to hold down the trigger much longer and cross your fingers much harder. A Spit16 consistently will require much less (maybe by 1/2) trigger time to get the same effect and convergence is almost a not a factor. To me, it speaks volumes about the disparity of the snapshot ability between aircraft that are supposed to have virtually equal gun packages.
-
I know if I try to take out the radar with an eight 50 package P47 it takes two passes. It takes one pass with the Typhoon. That is pretty much as one would think it should be. Next time out I will try the P38 and see how it compares, then a spit 16.
If i were to rate the firepower of the P38 and a P47 eight gun package, the P47 wins by a nose.
It doesn't take more than one pass to take out the radar in a P-38 using guns.
ack-ack
-
The 50s work fine, if you're having trouble with such lazer beams it's user error.
I read a comparison to a spit16, :lol 20mm cannons are epic.
-
I wonder if there were similar findings for Allied pilots. Reading the book "P-38 Lightning Aces of the ETO/MTO", almost all the aces in their AARs would mention firing at ranges of 200 yards or closer. If the findings for the Luftwaffe pilots were as you mentioned, then the same must be true of these P-38 aces and in reality probably fired at longer ranges then they thought they were.
ack-ack
Until the P38L, the gunsights in existing P38 had either a 50Mil with the Lynn L3 or 70Mil ring with the N-3. In the heat of the moment it would be very easy to misjudge how close the con was if the p38 pilot didn't get close enough so 1\3 of the wingspan was out past the main ring. For that, you could have shots being opened at 400 to 600 yards due to the smaller main rings. The modification for rockets to the L3 increased the ring to 101Mil. This was one reason the N-3 gunsights were traded out in the ETO for MkII in other AAF fighters.
-
Until the P38L, the gunsights in existing P38 had either a 50Mil with the Lynn L3 or 70Mil ring with the N-3. In the heat of the moment it would be very easy to misjudge how close the con was if the p38 pilot didn't get close enough so 1\3 of the wingspan was out past the main ring. For that, you could have shots being opened at 400 to 600 yards due to the smaller main rings. The modification for rockets to the L3 increased the ring to 101Mil. This was one reason the N-3 gunsights were traded out in the ETO for MkII in other AAF fighters.
I suspect that you're right and the P-38 aces probably thought they were closer because of the plane filling their sight ring with the older sights.
ack-ack
-
I know if I try to take out the radar with an eight 50 package P47 it takes two passes. It takes one pass with the Typhoon. That is pretty much as one would think it should be. Next time out I will try the P38 and see how it compares, then a spit 16.
If i were to rate the firepower of the P38 and a P47 eight gun package, the P47 wins by a nose.
i take out dar with a pony in one pass. same for ords bunkers
semp
-
On what airplane and what G loading?
A single spar hit at 1G loading would not break most WWII fighter's wings.
The only hit Johnnie Johnson ever took was from a head on with an Fw19o. His Spit IX took a 20mm hit to the wing spar near the wing root which caused the wing to bend back a bit and caused the Spit to be a write off, but the wing didn't fail and he flew back to base and landed normally.
I remember an episode of "Dogfights" where a P-51B pilot recounts shooting at a 190 in a high-G turn, inside of convergence. Each bank of .50s hit a different wings. He recalls the wings of the 190 folding up, as if it were a carrier plane. I feel like the .50s in AHII have an effectiveness right in line with this sort of thing. No need to change.
Since someone brought up Il2...Il2 is just silly in how it models .50s. You can unload the ammo load of a P-51D on an *un-maneuvering* 190 in front of you to almost no effect. .30s seem about equally effective in that game. Il2 gets so far up its own bellybutton looking for "realism" and glorifying the Eastern Front uber alles that it winds up doing unrealistic things, like making engines fail from a few minutes of WEP.
-
It varies widely from plane to plane IMO Mak. Some planes simply fall a part from .50s, some don't. The worst offenders in the later regard seem to be the Russian birds, which seem impossible to kill with a single 6x.50 snapshot, more difficult even than P-47s and P-38s.
I agree with Messiah. I think the biggest issue with .50s is the damage model. Damage in AH is cumulative you have to hit one spot hard and long to do damage with .50s vs cannon. Cannon have splash damage so you don't nessecarily need to hit any particular area to break something off. A perfect example is deacking with a spit vs a jug. All the spit has to do is get close to the pit with a 20mm whereas a jug has to hit the actual gun to do any damage. The damage model, I think, puts too much emphasis on convergence for .50 armed aircraft. A standard .50 cal round will penitrate 1/4" steel at almost a mile. A Jug throws about 100 of these rounds in a second. If you get caught at convergence for a 1/4 second snap shot, that will put around 20 rounds in the same area and break stuff off. Far too often, aircraft in game fly away unscathed after turning white white hit sprites from tip to tail because of the dispersment of the ammo and the lack of cumlitive damage to any single piece. Our aircraft don't have nearly the ammount of moving parts the real counterparts did. If they did, even long range shots would wreak havoc With the aircraft. Knocking out electrical systems, punching holes in coolant lines (not just radiators), breaking control cables and pullies, breaking gauges, perforating superchargers and impellers, breaking hydraulic lines, making holes in props and breaking hinges. All these things wouldn't nessarily bring an aircraft down but would seriously degrade its ability to fight. None of this is accounted for when that aircraft flies through a waterfall of .50 cal bullets. I've fired the browning several times before. I know what that weapon is capable of and AH is not quite up to its legendary standards in my opinion.
I've said it many times on range...
I want three shots at Dale's car with a .50. It might start afterwards but if it drives more than a half mile after taking those three shots, I'll replace the car and apologize for questioning the lethality of the browning armed aircraft in game.
-
I guess I need move my convergence in from 650... I am not hitting anything to any real great effect
-
For the purposes of this thread, I think attacks made against buildings should be left out for two reasons. First, when a bullet hits a building, all the kinetic damage counts. That is to say hitting a building at 1000yds or at 100yds doesn't matter against a building. http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/guns/guns.htm. This actually evens the playing field of cannons v. machine guns. Second, buildings don't have parts, so the importance of convergence is diminished. Knicking the sides of a building does the same damage as hitting the building in the middle at perfect convergence. I don't think anyone here is arguing that .50 damage should be upped as against buildings.
If I'm wrong about the damage model against buildings then the statement is withdrawn. Otherwise, the building damage model is a completely different and simpler animal.
So about the spit16 v. p47 comparison. The 20mm Hispano does 4.03 damage. The .50 does 1.17. A spit16 does 10.4 damage while a p47 does 9.36.
That means a p47 does 90% of the damage a spit16 does when both pilots tap the trigger. It sure doesn't feel like it.
-
So about the spit16 v. p47 comparison. The 20mm Hispano does 4.03 damage. The .50 does 1.17. A spit16 does 10.4 damage while a p47 does 9.36.
That means a p47 does 90% of the damage a spit16 does when both pilots tap the trigger. It sure doesn't feel like it.
Keep in mind that the damage model against planes and GVs is more complex that against structures.
That said, the cannons focus the damage a lot better whereas machine guns spread it out. That makes it a lot easier to cause fatal damage with cannons. Even Hispanos aren't fatal if you spread it out. I once did so with a Typhoon, hitting an La-7 with 10 rounds and causing no damage what so ever to him.
-
Maybe the question should be about how easy or hard is it to aim and hit with 50 cal instead of the 50 cal damage modeling?
From things HTC has shared about modeling in general in other post it has a lot of hard facts and detailed calculations figured into the models. I think sometimes our minds over simplify the modeling aspect into something like axb=c.
-
I think you're right about the building damage model Messi. That's why it's realitively easy to kill buildings with .50s. Cannons don't even need to connect to do damage. The splash damage does it for you. Perhaps the radius of splash damage on 20mm is excessive rather than the lack of hitting power of 50s. I actually think HT has the damage pretty close to perfect for .50s when you hit at convergence. Stuff readily falls off and planes break up nicely. When you get outside that (which happens much more often than right at convergence) and you turn an entire plane white with hit sprites, SOMETHING should be broken.
I was thinking about this last night. I lit up a spitfire like a Christmas tree while he was in a nose up stall. I had to take my shot early as I had a trailer and was going to be defensive in a few seconds. Spit flew away completely intact and started flippy floppy "defense." Took three more bursts to bring it down. 2nd burst was a two sprite ping with understandably no damage. 3rd burst caused a fuel leak. 4th burst finally took him down. If I had any plane with a 20mm package or been closer to convergence on the 1st pass, that spit would've never survived to start floping around and I could've paid more attention to the guy who finally killed me.
-
I prefer the Spit. Seems To have much more damage then the 51. Canons FTW
:cheers:
-
I'm pretty sure I remember reading the way guns are modeled here, MG's lose their damage over distance but cannons don't or lose less, to help simulate the explosive damage. That would account for a lot of the behavior I've seen, as other than the P38 I don't find .50s particularly effective much over 400 yards. I think that's more to do with the tight grouping of the stream of bullets and the way the DM works than the .50 cal round.
I seem to recall reading several accounts that the .50s were known for being more effective in close, less so the further you got from the target. I wonder if it had more to do with the rounds dispersing than round energy on impact. A few .50 rounds will not be pleasant to an airframe at 600 or 800 yards, but it won't be nearly like 20 or 30 of them hitting in close proximity to one another at 200.
Wiley.
-
I'm pretty sure I remember reading the way guns are modeled here, MG's lose their damage over distance but cannons don't or lose less, to help simulate the explosive damage. That would account for a lot of the behavior I've seen, as other than the P38 I don't find .50s particularly effective much over 400 yards. I think that's more to do with the tight grouping of the stream of bullets and the way the DM works than the .50 cal round.
I seem to recall reading several accounts that the .50s were known for being more effective in close, less so the further you got from the target. I wonder if it had more to do with the rounds dispersing than round energy on impact. A few .50 rounds will not be pleasant to an airframe at 600 or 800 yards, but it won't be nearly like 20 or 30 of them hitting in close proximity to one another at 200.
Wiley.
cannons have an explosive charger that doesnt get used till it hits something be it. bullets use it's own energy to penetrate. then again if you are using api rounds all the have to do is penetrate a little and "hold on" to cause more damage.
semp
-
I set my mk108s convergence at 650! :bolt:
(Only one set in 262, the other at 300).
-
It doesn't take more than one pass to take out the radar in a P-38 using guns.
ack-ack
are you using the 20mm allso ? if not i call bs,i cant take out dar in a A-20 with 6 50s in one pass let alone with only 4 50s
-
are you using the 20mm allso ? if not i call bs,i cant take out dar in a A-20 with 6 50s in one pass let alone with only 4 50s
I can't do it with a jug in one pass (at my preferred convergence).
-
are you using the 20mm allso ? if not i call bs,i cant take out dar in a A-20 with 6 50s in one pass let alone with only 4 50s
.50s. Aim at the concrete base, not the tower itself and the tower will go down easily.
ack-ack
-
.50s. Aim at the concrete base, not the tower itself and the tower will go down easily.
ack-ack
I tried with the P38 and with canons it took two passes. Yes I aim at the very base. Thinking back though it was a shallow dive for a radar run. I will give it another go.
Do you use zoom on a lot of your shots Ack-Ack?
-
.50s. Aim at the concrete base, not the tower itself and the tower will go down easily.
ack-ack
Got film?
-
Settings for radar are same as for ord bunkers.
If a p51 can strafe them down in one long pass, then the radar can be strafed down in one pass.
You just have to be going slow enough to land the damage required and probably don't have enough gun time on it at typical 500mph field strafing speeds.
At pretty slow speeds, you can take down a radar with 3 passes in a c202......probably two passes for a better shot than me which is almost everybody here.
-
I tried with the P38 and with canons it took two passes. Yes I aim at the very base. Thinking back though it was a shallow dive for a radar run. I will give it another go.
Do you use zoom on a lot of your shots Ack-Ack?
A little zoom for fine aiming.
ack-ack
-
Got film?
Don't know since I don't usually go on mud moving missions, so I'd have to go through a few thousand films to check but I can film the next time I log in.
One thing I do is that I don't fire in close, I usually open up at around 800 yards and keep firing until my pass is over. With the nose mounted guns, it's easy to keep fire on target and it's all concentrated.
ack-ack
-
One thing I do is that I don't fire in close, I usually open up at around 800 yards and keep firing until my pass is over. With the nose mounted guns, it's easy to keep fire on target and it's all concentrated.
ack-ack
BINGO!!
In ww2 P38 could open up from longer away due to the nose mounted concentrated .50cal.
Wing mounted .50 cal were a complete other discipline. The few short moments at, and just inside of effective range, 1200ft. Dictated the gunnery method for the other AAF fighter planes. At which point your 101Mil ring and flying skills were paramount to take advantage of a very tiny window of opportunity. And why the NAVY was forced by the AAF to route all of their Mark 21 production to the ETO. AAF K14 are all data plate stamped US NAVY Mark 21. The K14A was the first true AAF production gyro gunsight.
These conversations keep themselves alive because people don't want to accept the answer is as simple as the following.
With the hit area adhering to the aircraft's silhouette, and Hitech applying the physics faithfully for the .50 cal right out of the manuals. 1200ft(400yd) is your max effective air to air kill range with the AN\M2 in wing mounted configurations. 600 for the P38. Your convergence set just inside of that allows you to hit at 400 while accounting for closure at speed under 400. If your ACM and piloting skills are not honed to that window at, and just inside of 400, go see a trainer. Or start spending time offline against the drones just before you log into the arenas to tune your sight picture and reflexes.
Your internet connection also includes how good or bad your opponents connection is. In effect it averages your wonderful connection down if his is crapola because you two are a single connection of a sort. Or, your 50 cals start looking like Hitech is robbing you. Hitech cannot control this planet's weather. Skuzzy cannot control all the routers on this planet or the physical connections between them. Half the USA has been swamped in a terrible winter storm. Your 50 cals are showcasing how much that storm has affected our communication infrastructure.
-
LOL!!! Must've been a winter storm since 2007 or whenever I started this game. 50s have been underpowered the whole time.
While the "effective kill range" may be less than 400 yards, the effective range of a M2 Browning easily doubles that. Watching a plane at 600yards turn white with hit sprites and fly away without so much as a leak is an instult to Mr. Browning and one of the most legendary weapons ever fielded.
-
LOL!!! Must've been a winter storm since 2007 or whenever I started this game. 50s have been underpowered the whole time.
While the "effective kill range" may be less than 400 yards, the effective range of a M2 Browning easily doubles that. Watching a plane at 600yards turn white with hit sprites and fly away without so much as a leak is an instult to Mr. Browning and one of the most legendary weapons ever fielded.
Maybe you're just a lousy shot? I've had wings, cannons, ailerons, elevators, radiators, oil, etc, etc removed by 50cal fire at 800+ and I have been the victim of god knows how many single ping pilot wounds from 1k.
50cal is just fine. This thread is just another example of peoples hero planes not living up to what the History Channel has told them.
-
Got film?
dude i really hate you, you are making me defend akak. just like he said open up at 800 and hold your fire. if I carry rockets I can kill dar and both ammo bunkers with 6 rockets. or I can use my guns kill both dar and ammo bunkers with 2 passes and use the rockets to vulch.
not like killing dar with just bullets in one pass is a trade secret.
semp
-
Maybe you're just a lousy shot? I've had wings, cannons, ailerons, elevators, radiators, oil, etc, etc removed by 50cal fire at 800+ and I have been the victim of god knows how many single ping pilot wounds from 1k.
50cal is just fine. This thread is just another example of peoples hero planes not living up to what the History Channel has told them.
I'd buy the lousy shot thing if it wasn't actually HITTING my target. And not just little pings. I'm talking about long bursts landing and lighting up the whole plane from spinner to rudder.
The History Channel isn't where i get my information from. My experience (as far as the actual weapon goes) is first hand. I've hauled it, cleaned it, and fired it on several different occasions. I've seen the results with my own eyes.
-
I'd buy the lousy shot thing if it wasn't actually HITTING my target. And not just little pings. I'm talking about long bursts landing and lighting up the whole plane from spinner to rudder.
The History Channel isn't where i get my information from. My experience (as far as the actual weapon goes) is first hand. I've hauled it, cleaned it, and fired it on several different occasions. I've seen the results with my own eyes.
Lets assume for a moment that 50 cal damage is not accurately modeled in Aces High.
Hans Joachim Marseille averaged something like two or three 20mm rounds for every kill. Now! In Aces High you'd be lucky to even tickle most aircraft with three 20mm's. So if you want 50 caliber damage increased I would like my 20mm's upped too please.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_tLnDx6biBDA/TQxR_Vg3S5I/AAAAAAAACR4/H-ai_-eOgts/s400/.50+caliber+Browning+and+20+mm.jpg)
-
Lets assume for a moment that 50 cal damage is not accurately modeled in Aces High.
Hans Joachim Marseille averaged something like two or three 20mm rounds for every kill. Now! In Aces High you'd be lucky to even tickle most aircraft with three 20mm's. So if you want 50 caliber damage increased I would like my 20mm's upped too please.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_tLnDx6biBDA/TQxR_Vg3S5I/AAAAAAAACR4/H-ai_-eOgts/s400/.50+caliber+Browning+and+20+mm.jpg)
Marseille was something of an anomaly. Krupinski stated the precision of his deflection gunnery was unsurpassed in the LW, even compared to Hartmann.
-
Marseille was something of an anomaly. Krupinski stated the precision of his deflection gunnery was unsurpassed in the LW, even compared to Hartmann.
Even so, if I put three 20mm rounds in your wing it should come off.
-
Last night I did take out the radar with one pass with the P38 using both 50s and canon albeit a very long pass.
Next time I will try it with just 50s.
-
Even so, if I put three 20mm rounds in your wing it should come off.
That happens now! :bolt:
Speaking of anomalies, Bob Johnson RTB'd a P-47 with no less than 20 20mm strikes and many more 7.62 strikes. Granted, the AC was a write off
-
Even so, if I put three 20mm rounds in your wing it should come off.
It does. And it certainly has little to do with convergence which is understandable with explosive ammunition. I always love when people show a 20mm next to a .50 and that's a great comparison if the standard gun package on American planes was one for one (1 fifty for one 20mm). But American planes with the 6 gun pack throw out 3-5 of those rounds for every one 20mm shell on an aircraft equipped with a pair of 20mm.. So line up 3-5 .50s next to that 20 and then do a size comparison. My arguement has and continues to be that .50s are pretty close to perfect when the bad guy flies through a hose of them at convergence. Where the problem lies is when you score hits at greater distances and nothing seems to happen. Now I don't expect the target to blow into tiny bits but I also don't expect it to fly away with no damage simply because of the wider dispersement of ammunition. A hit is a hit and a Browning WILL damage something more often than it wont. This is a reflection of the damage model which heavily favors cannon because they lose very little effect as long as they hit. Since damage is cumulative for each part of the aircraft to lose pieces in game, you might hit the target with 10+ rounds of .50 and do nothing while a one or two 20 strikes will either kill or cripple the same target. Our cartoon aircraft simply don't have enough parts on them for the 50 to hit and that is why there is a problem.
-
Since damage is cumulative for each part of the aircraft to lose pieces in game, you might hit the target with 10+ rounds of .50 and do nothing while a one or two 20 strikes will either kill or cripple the same target. Our cartoon aircraft simply don't have enough parts on them for the 50 to hit and that is why there is a problem.
You're mostly right, the only quibble I'd make is, a .50 only has its kinetic energy available to cause damage with, and at 700 yards the KE on a .50 is significantly less than a .50 at 200 or closer.
Wiley.
-
Last night I did take out the radar with one pass with the P38 using both 50s and canon albeit a very long pass.
Next time I will try it with just 50s.
I ran a staged mission. I could not take down the radar with a P47 eight gun package or the P38 with 50 cal only. Not saying it can't be done, just saying.
Did kill it with a P38 using 50s and canon.
-
LOL!!! Must've been a winter storm since 2007 or whenever I started this game. 50s have been underpowered the whole time.
While the "effective kill range" may be less than 400 yards, the effective range of a M2 Browning easily doubles that. Watching a plane at 600yards turn white with hit sprites and fly away without so much as a leak is an instult to Mr. Browning and one of the most legendary weapons ever fielded.
Then the 8th AAF insulted Mr. Browning long before you or I were born.
This is their years of assessment from after action reports and review of gun cam footage along with testing from Aberdeen. Your best argument in this post has to do with the damage modeling Hitech chose to go with at longer ranges. His data comes from the 8th AAF's exhaustive research into the results of the AN\M2 in combat. Back then they had a life and death vested interest to know exactly what was happening with those rounds. After all, they were fighting an air war with them as their primary fighter gun.
We both know 1200ft and closer in the game works just like it worked in real life for the same physical reasons. And Hitech models in the physics that existed 70 years ago as it does today. Your argument over the .50 cal always reaches this point where you use other posters to hide behind while indirectly calling Hitech names for not programing from your personal position as an expert on the M2. So indirectly you are also saying the 8th AAF's data and Aberdeen's research from the war is bubcuss because you have more recently made use of an M2.
Hitech sir, please review your modeling of aircraft damage by the AN\M2 beyond 1200ft to the maximum line of sight range you have coded for Lil'Mak. He is a real world expert on the function and firing of the M2 and disagrees with your results. I'm sure upon request he will provide all of his current pertinent experiential data to help update the 70 year old 8th AAF and Aberdeen proving grounds data you currently have on file at HTC. As we both know, only data can be entered into a programming function.
-
I ran a staged mission. I could not take down the radar with a P47 eight gun package or the P38 with 50 cal only. Not saying it can't be done, just saying.
Did kill it with a P38 using 50s and canon.
That may be because of the staged mission settings perhaps. Or you're not hitting the base of the radar tower directly with the .50 cal, cannon only needs close proximity hits.
Simply use the offline mode, disable "protect objects" under arena flags in arena settings and have at it
A radar tower takes 313lb of damage for destruction. That's equivalent to 267 rounds of 0.50 or 78 rounds of 20mm Hispano. With 8x50cal, it just takes a 2 second burst to pop radar, ords, barracks...
P-47D40, 8x50cal, ~ 390 mph.
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/open_zps5c3b1dcb.jpg)
About 2 seconds after the trigger was pulled the first bullets impact, another 2 seconds after the first hits the radar is down:
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/close_zpsf01fe1c8.jpg)
Actual number of rounds spent: 344.
-
Then the 8th AAF insulted Mr. Browning long before you or I were born.
This is their years of assessment from after action reports and review of gun cam footage along with testing from Aberdeen. Your best argument in this post has to do with the damage modeling Hitech chose to go with at longer ranges. His data comes from the 8th AAF's exhaustive research into the results of the AN\M2 in combat. Back then they had a life and death vested interest to know exactly what was happening with those rounds. After all, they were fighting an air war with them as their primary fighter gun.
We both know 1200ft and closer in the game works just like it worked in real life for the same physical reasons. And Hitech models in the physics that existed 70 years ago as it does today. Your argument over the .50 cal always reaches this point where you use other posters to hide behind while indirectly calling Hitech names for not programing from your personal position as an expert on the M2. So indirectly you are also saying the 8th AAF's data and Aberdeen's research from the war is bubcuss because you have more recently made use of an M2.
Hitech sir, please review your modeling of aircraft damage by the AN\M2 beyond 1200ft to the maximum line of sight range you have coded for Lil'Mak. He is a real world expert on the function and firing of the M2 and disagrees with your results. I'm sure upon request he will provide all of his current pertinent experiential data to help update the 70 year old 8th AAF and Aberdeen proving grounds data you currently have on file at HTC. As we both know, only data can be entered into a programming function.
So in Aberdeen they proved that .50s do zero damage beyond 1200ft and aircraft only receive damage to the following parts in the following fashion...
Wings that only break at the roots and tips. Ailerons only fall off. Flaps break off but mysteriously the plane behaves as if the flap is still there and stuck in whatever position it was in when it got shot. Horizontal tail surfaces only break at one point. Langing gear, when hit, only fall off. Eninges only leak or have sudden stoppages when hit. Drop tanks and ord are invisible to bullets of any kind. Pilots all have the same threshold for pain before they pass out.
And the folks at Aberdeen also proved planes are completely hollow except for those parts HT has deemed breakable. There are no cables, pulleys, chains, hinges, oxygen tanks, turbochargers, wires, radios, guages, coolant lines, tires, gear doors, or anything of the sort and, even if there were, a half inch round that has an overall range of 4 miles would not effect any of those parts at distances greater than 600 yards.
I really need to read that report. Sounds facinating.
-
So in Aberdeen they proved that .50s do zero damage beyond 1200ft and aircraft only receive damage to the following parts in the following fashion...
Wings that only break at the roots and tips. Ailerons only fall off. Flaps break off but mysteriously the plane behaves as if the flap is still there and stuck in whatever position it was in when it got shot. Horizontal tail surfaces only break at one point. Langing gear, when hit, only fall off. Eninges only leak or have sudden stoppages when hit. Drop tanks and ord are invisible to bullets of any kind. Pilots all have the same threshold for pain before they pass out.
And the folks at Aberdeen also proved planes are completely hollow except for those parts HT has deemed breakable. There are no cables, pulleys, chains, hinges, oxygen tanks, turbochargers, wires, radios, guages, coolant lines, tires, gear doors, or anything of the sort and, even if there were, a half inch round that has an overall range of 4 miles would not effect any of those parts at distances greater than 600 yards.
I really need to read that report. Sounds facinating.
So what you're complaining about really is the lack of a more detailed damage model? Now we have something I can support.
-
So what you're complaining about really is the lack of a more detailed damage model? Now we have something I can support.
While I understand where you and LilMak are coming from in terms of the damage model. I think the reason made the effective range lower in distance is the fact that we can easily learn how to 'reach out' to other people out of their effective ranges. (Thinking of 303 and 30mm users off the bat). So instead of opening up at 800 yards, it could easily be 1500 or even 2k yards. Scary.
Not only that you miss, and the system would still have to track those rounds for 2000 yards (or more) if we will all-out realistic.
I think the range they are at is fine, in balancing the would be abusers, who would shoot out loooong ranges just to get a few pings. (Imagine m16s if I could reach out to you at 2000 yards + ?)
Again, I've gotten kills at 1200 yards before with 50 cals in both the m16 and various planes that use the 50.cal . I think I might make an offline film of my shooting and post it here.
-
You guys will have a flap about anything. :old:
-
You guys will have a flap about anything. :old:
Pot calling the kettle black much? :old:
-
:uhoh
-
So what you're complaining about really is the lack of a more detailed damage model? Now we have something I can support.
In a nut shell. Yes.
It's the damage model that makes the 1/2 inch round so anemic outside of convergence. Because the bullets fan out, they make contact with all kinds of surfaces on the plane instead of all hitting the in localized area it takes to break something off in AH. The reason they do zero to little damage is because they're hitting a virtually hollow aircraft. If a plane took 10+ rounds in the real world it might shrug it off and be able to fly home or even continue to fight but it's ability to fight may be diminished for an infinite number of reasons that aren't accounted for by the AH damage model.
-
Makes sense Mak. Although to be fair, I do think the ease of wing removal and such is upped a bit in AHII to make up for the simpler damage model. I mean, you can trim parts off airplanes with .303s with sustained bursts as well, I think that might be an indication.
In a nut shell. Yes.
It's the damage model that makes the 1/2 inch round so anemic outside of convergence. Because the bullets fan out, they make contact with all kinds of surfaces on the plane instead of all hitting the in localized area it takes to break something off in AH. The reason they do zero to little damage is because they're hitting a virtually hollow aircraft. If a plane took 10+ rounds in the real world it might shrug it off and be able to fly home or even continue to fight but it's ability to fight may be diminished for an infinite number of reasons that aren't accounted for by the AH damage model.
-
. I think I might make an offline film of my shooting and post it here.
For 50 cals
http://www.mediafire.com/download/r45sv22l1h9saxq/P47M_Offline_Test.ahf
For 30mm
http://www.mediafire.com/download/4h4n8maor39bk12/Ta-152_30MM_Offline_Testing.ahf
(Don't grade my aiming too hard, it's been 2 1/2 months since I've been in-game, just got my old computer back 2 days ago, can't connect to the internet yet. :bhead )
Or my flying if you are watching the Ta-152 :lol