Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Arlo on March 11, 2014, 12:17:38 AM
-
Yes, we need everything (even jeeps) with 20mm. Those .50s just suxors. :D
-
ill settle for the 4 20 mm Ki84 :t
-
(http://www.theregiment.ca/photos/kevinch2.jpg#20mm%20sniper%20rifle)
-
now thats a BFG :O
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
instead of adding 20mm to everything, lets just get rid of anything with .50's
-
I've seen this 'addition by subtraction' thing before. :D
-
Actually the game would be more fun if everything was equipped with 4x.50s.
-
Actually the game would be more fun if everything was equipped with 4x.50s.
Planes yes, tanking might get a bit frustrating though....
-
Planes yes, tanking might get a bit frustrating though....
Why isn't my Tiger II killing your Panzer??? :bhead :bhead
-
Planes yes, tanking might get a bit frustrating though....
Even planes would be lacking. If everything had four .50s the heavy fighters would be useless, the BnZers weakened in comparison to the turners.
-
Planes yes, tanking might get a bit frustrating though....
Shoot them through the view slits!!!
-
Even planes would be lacking. If everything had four .50s the heavy fighters would be useless, the BnZers weakened in comparison to the turners.
P-51B? ;-)
Obviously my wish is no more serious in intent than Arlos's, the planes must be modeled correctly. Albeit I'd say the Hizookas are just as big an advantage to TnB fighters as BnZ fighters...kills on fleeting snapshots, or hanging by their props, or at very long distance at extending fighters, and of course, the ever-common "Pull back on the stick REALLY hard and HO the fighter diving on you". Six of one, half dozen of the other
-
Wimps...the 50 cal is just fine. Even those who 'spray and pray' have a chance. For those who can aim worth anything they kill just fine.
(Full disclosure: I fly the 190A5, which has the 20mm and bb shooters. I strongly suspect the 2x20mm/2x.303 loadout is not much more weight/volume on target than 6x0.50 of the PonyD, which has a higher rate of fire.)
-
P-51B? ;-)
Obviously my wish is no more serious in intent than Arlos's, the planes must be modeled correctly. Albeit I'd say the Hizookas are just as big an advantage to TnB fighters as BnZ fighters...kills on fleeting snapshots, or hanging by their props, or at very long distance at extending fighters, and of course, the ever-common "Pull back on the stick REALLY hard and HO the fighter diving on you". Six of one, half dozen of the other
And how many P-51B's do you see? Yeah, almost none.
-
Yes, we need everything (even jeeps) with 20mm. Those .50s just suxors. :D
:airplane: When I first came into this game 4 years ago, if another aircraft closed to within 1000 yds of me, I could kill him very easily. Now, it seems as though the "con" has to be with in 6 or 700 yds before I can kill him. I know I have bad eyes and am a little older now, but seems as though the 50's have been dampened to some degree.
-
And how many P-51B's do you see? Yeah, almost none.
Everybody flies the D because it's harder to run from 20k to your ack after one pass in a B model. :bolt:
-
I always thought it was because its a bit like bra size, people always assume the last letter is better.
-
I always thought it was because its a bit like bra size, people always assume the last letter is better.
P51 with dual G drops? (Drops would be the key woid.)
-
And how many P-51B's do you see? Yeah, almost none.
Well in the LWMA you have the P-51D, the P-47M, and the 190D9, similar performing planes with more punch. But you used to see the P-51B fairly frequently in the Mid War Arena, back a few years ago when it was the best arena we had going and not the milk-running bombers arena it is today. :salute
It's a little insane they didn't equip the P-51 with two Hispanos as its gun package back then though, that would have made the plane lighter and left it still at least as lethal.
-
I just had the greatest idea.. Storch with a single 20mm. :t
-
At least Arlo is doing this in a classy "tongue in cheek" way.
1. - Since the damage area was reduced to the silhouette of the target, complaints about kills with the MG have been on the rise.
Many other contributing factors impact MG gunnery. Hitech has introduced the historic 1200ft effective range. Many players never really develop the skill to hold MG on target long enough. Many players don't really understand refining their controllers to eliminate bounce and jitter which introduce dispersion to their MG gunnery. Players don't understand how to turn off processes before logging onto the server to reduce CPU congestion. Some players don't understand how to aim in an air combat environment along with any ACM skill.
The upshot is the MG is a canary in the coal mine to your deficiencies related to gunnery and ACM. Where the 20mm is like a blind hog can always find an acorn.
2. - Observations that the easy mode killing ability of the 20mm is driving game play and ride selection. The 20mm is more like the old days of the game's hit modeling and it's ability to reward even the newer players with kills.
The AAF reviewed 701 combat films that resulted in the destruction of 186 german planes. Of the 701 pilots, 39% of those pilots shot down the 186 planes. All 39% of those pilots had one thing in common. The were firing inside of 1200ft. It has been observed that the Germans went with cannons precisely for the "bling hog will get an acorn" reason. And why the spitfire family is so successful in the game for new players.
I suspect as is, to increase the lethality of each 50 cal impact would increase the overall lethality of all rounds against aircraft. That would become rather gamey over night, along with unrealistic kills at will out to 1000yds like the very early years of our game because of how hits were determined by the program.
Offline the 50 cal works as specified in the WW2 gunnery manuals. But, online players are not compliant drones and the internet and our game equipment hates us all. So the real question becomes, are you requesting Hitech fudge the 50 cal so you don't have to work as hard at using it? Even though you are all proud to point to Aces High for it's physics realism versus the gamey aspects of all the other competitors.
All the AAF non-38 aces shot inside of 1200ft knowing the limitations of the AN\M2. And our P47\P51 top players are fitting the AAF numbers of who killed the 189 planes out of 701 pilots. Sooo, Aces High Thunder and an xBox controller anyone.......piu, piu, piu...... :joystick:
-
At least Arlo is doing this in a classy "tongue in cheek" way.
When have I not? :D
-
Many other contributing factors impact MG gunnery. Hitech has introduced the historic 1200ft effective range. Many players never really develop the skill to hold MG on target long enough. Many players don't really understand refining their controllers to eliminate bounce and jitter which introduce dispersion to their MG gunnery.
Explain how to do this please.
Also, I almost never shoot outside of 400 yards. I feel like the main place where .50s are frustrating for me and a lot of other players is actually close in snap-shots where the opponent is flat scissoring back and forth or the like. On the planform deflection shot the .50s indeed maim and kill.
-
I just had the greatest idea.. Storch with a single 20mm. :t
Hmmmm....now this is an idea! Storch duel anyone?! :joystick:
-
+1 for 5 days
-
That is probably true at short distance, explosive rounds probably do more damage at longer range than the 6*50.
Wimps...the 50 cal is just fine. Even those who 'spray and pray' have a chance. For those who can aim worth anything they kill just fine.
(Full disclosure: I fly the 190A5, which has the 20mm and bb shooters. I strongly suspect the 2x20mm/2x.303 loadout is not much more weight/volume on target than 6x0.50 of the PonyD, which has a higher rate of fire.)
-
Explain how to do this please.
Also, I almost never shoot outside of 400 yards. I feel like the main place where .50s are frustrating for me and a lot of other players is actually close in snap-shots where the opponent is flat scissoring back and forth or the like. On the planform deflection shot the .50s indeed maim and kill.
If you test this offline where the drones are cooperating with our gunnery using the LCG green cross to help you aim. You will find, unless you aim your AN\M2 stream through the canopy, the drone fly's on with about the same damage you see in the MA. WW2 gunnery training for American pilots expected shooting to happen from the rear quarters. Not for their pilots to show off their close in air show aerobatics skills with an enemy trying to kill them. It was stressed during training, that shooting from the rear quarters would result in the longest firing time to enable getting enough AN\M2 rounds into the enemy to be useful. Crossing shots and scissoring snap shots defeats the AN\M2's strength by limiting the numbers of rounds possible on target. 20mm require fewer, so achieve better results in the MA during crossing snap shots. Blind hog finding acorns approach.
-
I'll take a B-17G with twenty mils!
COME NEAR MEE LITTLEEE FIGHTERSSSS....
-
Shooting from dead six is often unpossible against a resisting opponent, especially if a relative maneverability advantage on their part forces the use of energy tactics.
If you test this offline where the drones are cooperating with our gunnery using the LCG green cross to help you aim. You will find, unless you aim your AN\M2 stream through the canopy, the drone fly's on with about the same damage you see in the MA. WW2 gunnery training for American pilots expected shooting to happen from the rear quarters. Not for their pilots to show off their close in air show aerobatics skills with an enemy trying to kill them. It was stressed during training, that shooting from the rear quarters would result in the longest firing time to enable getting enough AN\M2 rounds into the enemy to be useful. Crossing shots and scissoring snap shots defeats the AN\M2's strength by limiting the numbers of rounds possible on target. 20mm require fewer, so achieve better results in the MA during crossing snap shots. Blind hog finding acorns approach.
-
Sounds like you want Hitech to make the AN\M2 gamey to work in an ACM environment which historically didn't happen as the rule to which the gun platform was designed to.
In our game you are being ACM defeated by not enough time on target to utilize the AN\M2's strength. Would you complain like this flying the C.202 or I16 Type27? Even with them you are constrained by not enough time on target during our ACM dancing with the stars ridiculousness. Or haven't you noticed most of the muppets historically fly cannon armed fighters even though they make sure to let everyone know about their ACM prowess in everything.
-
Actually I think the problem is a .50 bullet being able to pass through most parts of an aircraft with zero chance of hitting a fluid line, ammo belt, control cable, etc, and thus doing nothing *unless* enough of it`s fellows hit the same bit to do gross structural damage.
Sounds like you want Hitech to make the AN\M2 gamey to work in an ACM environment which historically didn't happen as the rule to which the gun platform was designed to.
In our game you are being ACM defeated by not enough time on target to utilize the AN\M2's strength. Would you complain like this flying the C.202 or I16 Type27? Even with them you are constrained by not enough time on target during our ACM dancing with the stars ridiculousness. Or haven't you noticed most of the muppets historically fly cannon armed fighters even though they make sure to let everyone know about their ACM prowess in everything.
-
if you read German pilot reports, their planes where shot by many bullets without causing structural failures, the reports talk about hit engines, radiators, and sometimes pilot wounds, causing them to bail or ditch.
190s had fuel under pilot and only TA152's had wing tanks of the common enemy.
I find myself getting about same number of kills in an f4u as in a 109, but many of them are late kills in the f4u, causing first major damage to the enemy.
I find the 51b specially hard to get kills in, due to high closure rate on enemy.
-
When we loose ailerons, rudder and elevators. Isn't that Hitech taking an easier approach to the outcome of shot up control cables? And our fuel, radiator and oil hits. Just generic one shot shopping for all fluids. And pilot wounds\death. A catch all for all of the minutia of possible outcomes from rounds passing through the cockpit. And loosing outer wing panels in fighters. A lot like the FW on gun camera when you see the 20mm or 30mm magazine take an M8 API hit. I would like to see the real world results of that. The uncontrollable violent tumbling spin in response to the magazine's mass PETN and hexogen content going off showcased online in AAF gun cam films.
So what is it you want Hitech to change about the AN\M2 M8 API physics and odds of getting any concentration of rounds on target during our sub 400 yard dance-a-thon snap shot windows?
-
I think Rick Astley would like to weigh in on this issue.
(http://www.mattcutts.com/images/rick-astley-trenchcoat.jpg)
-
When we loose ailerons, rudder and elevators. Isn't that Hitech taking an easier approach to the outcome of shot up control cables?
Currently we lose those control surfaces when X weight of rounds needed to knock them off hit *directly* on said control surfaces.* But control cables would actually represent more areas on the plane that could be hit and result in jammed/disabled controls, potentially with only a round or three. Ditto for the fluid lines and other goodies inside an airplane. Currently there are large areas of the plane which are essentially "hollow" and which simply drilling holes through does nothing until you put in enough weight of fire to reach the gross structural limit and make the part fall off completely.
This modeling is arguably disadvantageous for a gun package firing a smaller round but making a larger number of holes versus a gun package tossing bigger rounds in lesser numbers.
For instance, if you compare a 6x.50s to two Hispanos, both packages are putting out roughly the same amount of damage per second. However, the .50s are making MANY more holes than the Hispanos, usually over a wider area. Each Hispano round is roughly as destructive as three .50 rounds. By definition, each Hispano round is putting its full weight of damage on a single part. Let's say an aileron gets hit. A Hispano ping or two can and does make the aileron go away. Three to six .50 pings to the aileron potentially does the same thing. However, it is much more likely that some of these .50 rounds will hit somewhere besides the aileron, say the wing. Currently there is ZERO chance of these widespread holes on the aileron and wing inflicting any disability whatsoever on the enemy airplane. You either get in enough weight of fire to knock off an aileron and/or outboard wing portion or you get nothing. But more complex damage modeling would represent some chance that this larger number of holes spread over a greater area would pierce something at least somewhat debilitating. Make sense?
A comparison can be made to shotguns and bird hunting. If shot had to either hit the heart or literally tear a wing off to bring down that bird, shotguns might not be very good bird-hunting weapons at all. If that were the case folks might have better results using .22 rifles. But because birds are actually chock-full of structures and organs vulnerable to pellet hits, it is a virtual certainty that accurate fire at reasonable range will hit some of these structures with pellets and bring down the bird. Thus shot guns are good bird-hunting weapons, far better than rifles for small moving targets at close ranges.
The other consideration is using shot large enough to have adequate penetration for the size of bird you are hunting at the ranges you are firing. As long as you have adequate penetration, you are better off having more smaller shot to make more holes with, right? Well, at typical combat shooting ranges .50s have more than enough penetration to get the job done, it is just the "birds" they are shooting at have such large areas where punching holes will do absolutely nothing.
-
While we may understand the real life ramifications, how many of us can truly appreciate the coding involved?
-
While we may understand the real life ramifications, how many of us can truly appreciate the coding involved?
Right, I was thinking about saying something about that in my post. Desirable, but may not be practical.
-
Right, I was thinking about saying something about that in my post. Desirable, but may not be practical.
I think that you may find that were this implemented as you describe, there would be an incredibly high number of frustrating incidents of airplane incapacitation. Imagine if the oft-encountered but easily avoided head-on attack by a P-51D or other American AN/M2-equipped bird, which generally results in only a couple pings, if any, could sever your control cables. It already sucks when the errant hit gives you a pilot wound or radiator damage, but at least you can fly back to base after those. Lose your elevator cables? May as well bail.
-
I think that you may find that were this implemented as you describe, there would be an incredibly high number of frustrating incidents of airplane incapacitation. Imagine if the oft-encountered but easily avoided head-on attack by a P-51D or other American AN/M2-equipped bird, which generally results in only a couple pings, if any, could sever your control cables. It already sucks when the errant hit gives you a pilot wound or radiator damage, but at least you can fly back to base after those. Lose your elevator cables? May as well bail.
There's ALREADY an incredibly high number of frustrating incidents of airplane incapacitation. Magic BBs that manage to knock out fuel and/or oil in one hit. Losing both elevators with a fluke snapshot. Max range ack round that headshots your pilot.
-
But all the head-ons by Spitfires, 190s and other cannon birds don't concern you in the least? :rolleyes:
Your argument is a poor one because our paradigm in AHII is trying to model things as closely as possible. If we don't want the possibility of a single BB ending our sorties then pilot wounds/kills or radiator holes shouldn't be modeled at all. But would you really want to put a cluster of rounds straight into a plane's canopy only to watch it fly off without the slightest debilitation?
Nope, the whole idea is to model the damage as realistically as practical, no matter where it leads. My theory is that a more realistic damage model with more bits to destroy would raise the efficacy of multiple .50 cals and their shotgun-like effect in the game. In WWII that approach was a proven success for attacking fighters, but if one went only by this game one would think the American forces were completely brain-dead for relying on banks of .50s instead adding smaller numbers of 20MM cannon.
I think that you may find that were this implemented as you describe, there would be an incredibly high number of frustrating incidents of airplane incapacitation. Imagine if the oft-encountered but easily avoided head-on attack by a P-51D or other American AN/M2-equipped bird, which generally results in only a couple pings, if any, could sever your control cables. It already sucks when the errant hit gives you a pilot wound or radiator damage, but at least you can fly back to base after those. Lose your elevator cables? May as well bail.
-
Agreed fully with BnZs. So let's add stuff like:
Control lines
Fuel lines
Oil lines
Oil coolers
Hydraulics
That will make a fairly big difference without even considering going to incremental airfoil/control surface damage.
-
It would definitely be a plus. Sounds a bit daunting though. We'll see what happens.
Agreed fully with BnZs. So let's add stuff like:
Control lines
Fuel lines
Oil lines
Oil coolers
Hydraulics
That will make a fairly big difference without even considering going to incremental airfoil/control surface damage.
-
So the damage model in the WWI arena has not been implemented in the MA yet?
It is a 100% BB driven, poke holes in things model.
-
Even planes would be lacking. If everything had four .50s the heavy fighters would be useless, the BnZers weakened in comparison to the turners.
yes you would actually need some fighting skill :aok
-
yes you would actually need some fighting skill :aok
another constructive comment from the mighty one. :aok
-
While we may understand the real life ramifications, how many of us can truly appreciate the coding involved?
14.95 a month baby the more cool stuff the more cool money, 2nd on my list , but prolly 1st in actual dollar bills. :D
Um if were talkin 4x20's ........ Put me down for a A20G-1 and a P-51 :aok
:cheers:
-
another constructive comment from the mighty one. :aok
Kiss off :aok
-
Kiss off :aok
yet an other one. Keep going :aok
-
So the damage model in the WWI arena has not been implemented in the MA yet?
It is a 100% BB driven, poke holes in things model.
As I understand it, the damage model in WWI takes into account aerodynamic effects from having many, many holes poked in your wings. It does not, as far as I know, involve additional additional times to damage as we have been discussing, such as control cables etc. Correct me if I am wrong on this.
-
As a axis cartoon pilot I want everything axis with 30mm, preferably with mk103 :)
-
As a axis cartoon pilot I want everything axis with 30mm, preferably with mk103 :)
+1
-
As a axis cartoon pilot I want everything axis with 30mm, preferably with mk103 :)
:devil
-
As I understand it, the damage model in WWI takes into account aerodynamic effects from having many, many holes poked in your wings. It does not, as far as I know, involve additional things to damage as we have been discussing, such as control cables etc. Correct me if I am wrong on this.
-
Is our damage modeling a reflection of the complex difference of our game and the competition's, which causes them to have arenas the size of one of our sectors? But, allows them to have eye candy and special effects out the wazoo while their physics blows chunks?
We too often view our game only in the micro perspective of our tiny area's of nightly operation. While forgetting innocently or selfishly the macro differences in what constitutes our physics. Seems that over 14 years the slowness in changing the hit area design may be an insight to the complexity of the undertaking in evolving damage further, constrained by our macro physics versus IL2\WT micro physics.
If a new Aces High is about to be released due to the new terrain engine, light, and Shader. Our arguments focused on this version of Aces High are a bit idiotic. We have yet to experience the new Aces High so we can then reformulate our dissatisfactions against it.
Do we have any reason to believe this version of Aces High is not being twilighted against a new version soon to replace it?