Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: alskahawk on June 02, 2015, 11:58:52 AM
-
My wish list; 1.Bombers shouldn't be able to dogfight with or without bombs.
A. Guns that can't shoot 1000 yards +!
2. Better plane models all around.
A. Realistic bullets/shell performance. 800 yards+?!
B. Russian planes are very optimistic on their performance.
C. Better collision model
3. Better maps
A. Winter maps
B. Desert maps
C. Clouds
D. Pacific only and Europe only Arena's
E. More maps in rotation
4. Get rid of HQ killing radar, eliminate radar except at specific area's.
A. Reduce the number of capturable bases
B. Add more strategic elements
5. Increase perk cost for certain up gunned rare planes.
-
My wish list; 1.Bombers shouldn't be able to dogfight with or without bombs.
A fighting bomber is an even easier kill than a bomber using turrets.
A. Guns that can't shoot 1000 yards +!
The guns could shoot 1000+ yards. Bomber turret dispersion is much tighter than historical, but as a gameplay concession it can be lived with otherwise bombers will not be used. They are easy kills as it is for those who don't crawl up the bomber's 6.
2. Better plane models all around.
Graphically or flightwise? Better graphics are always nice, and it is certainly something that holds Aces High back, but there are development resources needed to do that and I am not sure HTC has those resources. Flight model wise AH still has the best flight model of any of the MMO online flight sims by a very wide margin. Damage models are probably, from a sim fans standpoint, the biggest weakness that AH has.
A. Realistic bullets/shell performance. 800 yards+?!
Wing flex is not modeled, but other than that ballistics are modeled very well. And it was possible in WWII as well, George Buerling shot down a Bf109 at more than 800 yards using wing mounted Hispanos from a Spitfire V.
B. Russian planes are very optimistic on their performance.
Show documentation supporting other performance levels. HTC has always been open to primary source documentation they didn't have access to. Without that, you are asking for them just to guestimate how much lower actual performance was than the flight test data.
C. Better collision model
Unless you have a way to make the internet FTL then there isn't a better one. And yes, it needs to be FTL, light speed isn't fast enough.
3. Better maps
A. Winter maps
B. Desert maps
There is a map maker. Get cracking.
C. Clouds
I hear rumors of a new version coming out soonish...
D. Pacific only and Europe only Arena's
Game doesn't have enough players in the MA. Splitting the population up isn't going to work. Further, what do you gain from these settings? American, British, German, Italian and Russian aircraft in one and American, British and Japanese aircraft in the other? Why is that better?
E. More maps in rotation
See prior map answer.
4. Get rid of HQ killing radar, eliminate radar except at specific area's.
A. Reduce the number of capturable bases
B. Add more strategic elements
5. Increase perk cost for certain up gunned rare planes.
These are discussion worthy points. Please elaborate on them.
-
My wish list; 1.Bombers shouldn't be able to dogfight with or without bombs.
"A fighting bomber is an even easier kill than a bomber using turrets."
Ok that's a matter of opinion. Given the wing loading of a bomber a bomber shouldn't be able to turn or zoom like it does in the game. Particularly with the additional weight of bombs.
A. Guns that can't shoot 1000 yards +!
"The guns could shoot 1000+ yards. Bomber turret dispersion is much tighter than historical, but as a gameplay concession it can be lived with otherwise bombers will not be used. They are easy kills as it is for those who don't crawl up the bomber's 6."
While the bomber dispersion may be tighter the idea that you can shoot accurately at 1000yards plus is ridicules. While a few sharpshooters have fired single shots with mounted 50 cal's, expecting a flow of bullets tumbling through the air to hit anything accurately is not even realistic. And even if you accept your theory of tighter dispersion it does nothing to explain fighters shooting at 1000 yards and getting hits. I have shot down a fighter with a P51 at 800 yards and I am not even good at this game!
2. Better plane models all around.
"Graphically or flightwise? Better graphics are always nice, and it is certainly something that holds Aces High back, but there are development resources needed to do that and I am not sure HTC has those resources. Flight model wise AH still has the best flight model of any of the MMO online flight sims by a very wide margin. Damage models are probably, from a sim fans standpoint, the biggest weakness that AH has."
Flight wise. AH has the best flight model of any "current" MMO. It could be a lot better. Many of the planes are what I call over modeled, but my biggest gripe is the bias towards certain planes. Particularly the Russian planes. This is a whole 10 page argument in itself. Let me just succinctly say that there needs to be a better balance.
A. Realistic bullets/shell performance. 800 yards+?!
Wing flex is not modeled, but other than that ballistics are modeled very well. And it was possible in WWII as well, George Buerling shot down a Bf109 at more than 800 yards using wing mounted Hispanos from a Spitfire V.
Yes that is one shot from thousands that he shot. (and an eyeball estimate at that)Let alone the billions of shots that were fired. 800 yards shots are common in this game. The same with the Ho shot. It happened. But not near as common as in this game. If you've ever fired a real 50 cal you'd know that bullet drop occurs shortly after the bullet leaves the barrel. I have fired 50 cal's from a moving aircraft a stationary target and it isn't as easy as this game makes it out to be.
B. Russian planes are very optimistic on their performance.
"Show documentation supporting other performance levels. HTC has always been open to primary source documentation they didn't have access to. Without that, you are asking for them just to guestimate how much lower actual performance was than the flight test data."
Historically the Russians have been less than honest on their performance data. The amount of damage, climb rate on a Yak, zoom of the LA7, the speed decay of a FW in a turn. There are plenty of threads here that argue this same point about the Russian aircraft. Most agree with me on it.
C. Better collision model
"Unless you have a way to make the internet FTL then there isn't a better one. And yes, it needs to be FTL, light speed isn't fast enough."
Huh? Yah, the collision model isn't the best. It is arbitrary in it execution. Again plenty of threads arguing this point. Most agree with my point.
3. Better maps
A. Winter maps
B. Desert maps
"There is a map maker. Get cracking." Yah if it was that easy I would do it. It's not. And there are some winter maps, just not 3 country maps.
C. Clouds
"I hear rumors of a new version coming out soonish..."
Two weeks. Probably won't have clouds. Probably same old maps just updated. Rumors I hear are favorable on the graphics though!
4. Get rid of HQ killing radar, eliminate radar except at specific area's.
A. Reduce the number of capturable bases
B. Add more strategic elements
5. Increase perk cost for certain up gunned rare planes.
"These are discussion worthy points. Please elaborate on them."
I'll go into this on next post.
-
4. Get rid of HQ killing radar, eliminate radar except at specific area's.
A. Reduce the number of capturable bases
B. Add more strategic elements
5. Increase perk cost for certain up gunned rare planes.
These are discussion worthy points. Please elaborate on them.
These are just opinions.
The HQ killing radar is discussed in other threads. The point was virtually made when one of the moderators stated that they would have already changed that if they could. AH realizes this is a problem. It causes a lot of dissention and people exit the game.
Capturable bases; This is just opinion. Fewer bases to capture, more concentration on other elements of the game. This game is too much about the base capture and less about the fight sometimes.
Strategic elements. Such as factories for certain aircraft. And this is just throwing out an idea. Restrict certain planes to certain countries or bases. More strategic points for bombers. Move fighter bases back from the front, more tank bases on the fronts.
Rare planes and perks. Some of these planes were limited production and were not common at the front. P47m for example suffered a lot of problems and didn't get a lot of flight time until 1945. There are a lot of players with a lot of perk points. A 200 perk for a jet isn't all that big when you have in excess of 10,000 perkies.
-
Ok that's a matter of opinion. Given the wing loading of a bomber a bomber shouldn't be able to turn or zoom like it does in the game. Particularly with the additional weight of bombs.
What do you mean by this? Most bombers have lower wingloading, bombs included, than most fighters. Just because the bomber might be turning a smaller circle than the fighter doesn't mean the fighter doesn't have more than enough tools to kill it.
While the bomber dispersion may be tighter the idea that you can shoot accurately at 1000yards plus is ridicules. While a few sharpshooters have fired single shots with mounted 50 cal's, expecting a flow of bullets tumbling through the air to hit anything accurately is not even realistic. And even if you accept your theory of tighter dispersion it does nothing to explain fighters shooting at 1000 yards and getting hits. I have shot down a fighter with a P51 at 800 yards and I am not even good at this game!
There are a lot of factors not modeled in AH, some that cannot be modeled because it is a game without our lives actually on the line. Given that the ballistics are accurately modeled, and they are, what would you do differently?
Flight wise. AH has the best flight model of any "current" MMO. It could be a lot better. Many of the planes are what I call over modeled, but my biggest gripe is the bias towards certain planes. Particularly the Russian planes. This is a whole 10 page argument in itself. Let me just succinctly say that there needs to be a better balance.
Again, you're suggesting stuff just be made up so that it "feels" right and saying the Russian tests are false, but presenting no evidence of that other than the persistent Western Allies bias that has long permeated the WWII hobbies in the US and UK. Actual supporting documentation for your claims are needed.
Yes that is one shot from thousands that he shot. (and an eyeball estimate at that)Let alone the billions of shots that were fired. 800 yards shots are common in this game. The same with the Ho shot. It happened. But not near as common as in this game. If you've ever fired a real 50 cal you'd know that bullet drop occurs shortly after the bullet leaves the barrel. I have fired 50 cal's from a moving aircraft a stationary target and it isn't as easy as this game makes it out to be.
Games are always easier than reality in such things. Again, the ballistics are accurately modeled, what do you suggest be changed?
Historically the Russians have been less than honest on their performance data. The amount of damage, climb rate on a Yak, zoom of the LA7, the speed decay of a FW in a turn. There are plenty of threads here that argue this same point about the Russian aircraft. Most agree with me on it.
You sure about that? Have you polled the game? Or are you just relying on a reinforcing feedback loop of the people who actually respond to those complaints. Again, primary source documentation is needed, else it is just BSing.
Huh? Yah, the collision model isn't the best. It is arbitrary in it execution. Again plenty of threads arguing this point. Most agree with my point.
Again you fall back on this made up "most". In my experience the only people who don't like the collision model are the people who don't understand it and don't understand the consequences of the alternatives. Look, it is simple. You have these choices? Both collide if any collision is detected, both collide only if both FEs detect a collision, neither collide, person on who's FE collision happens collides and person on who's FE the collision did not happen collides. Both collide results in ramming be an actively useful tactic, and one that is very hard to avoid. Defenders gain a lot as a defender may have only taken off 1 minute prior whereas the attacker won't be back for 10 minutes, it results in you died to a collision with a plane that passed 100 yards away from yours. Both colliding only if both FEs detect a collision makes collisions rare and unpredictable, it also makes attacking bombers easier as 99% of the time you can get away with flying right through the bomber, guns blazing as it is hard to miss from 0 yards. No collisions just takes that 99% and makes it 100%, and in all situations, a huge distortion of tactics. Collisions happening to who's FE detects a collision is what we have. Collisions being applied to the guy who's FE did not detect the collision is silly and shan't be discussed.
Yah if it was that easy I would do it. It's not. And there are some winter maps, just not 3 country maps.
It is a matter of resources.
Two weeks. Probably won't have clouds. Probably same old maps just updated. Rumors I hear are favorable on the graphics though!
I recall HiTech saying something about new clouds. Not sure though, but I thought he did.
-
You can't jerk a bomber around like a fighter and get away with it. The load multiplies the force on the wings. This applies to the turns as well as the pull up from a dive. Add bombs and it multiplies even more.
Ballistics are not accurately modeled in the game. If they were 800+ shots wouldn't be as common as they are here.
As for the Russian planes. Look at the Yak climb test threads that have been done. The plane takes way too much damage. It is a light plane. Again these have all been discussed here. These aren't the only ones. Some of the American planes are a little generous on their turn speed decay rates versus some of the other planes, such as the FW. P51, P47 flaps at over 300 mph while most other planes can't deploy until 150-175.
-
You can't jerk a bomber around like a fighter and get away with it. The load multiplies the force on the wings. This applies to the turns as well as the pull up from a dive. Add bombs and it multiplies even more.
Documentation can solve this. All you need to do is find the max load the bomber can take and demonstrate that it exceeds that in AH. You might be surprised to find how much some bombers could take.
Ballistics are not accurately modeled in the game. If they were 800+ shots wouldn't be as common as they are here.
Then demonstrate that they are not accurately modeled. You have all the tools you need.
As for the Russian planes. Look at the Yak climb test threads that have been done. The plane takes way too much damage. It is a light plane. Again these have all been discussed here. These aren't the only ones. Some of the American planes are a little generous on their turn speed decay rates versus some of the other planes, such as the FW. P51, P47 flaps at over 300 mph while most other planes can't deploy until 150-175.
Flap speeds in AH are dictated by the speed limits in the pilots handbooks, so again, you have everything you need to demonstrate it is wrong. Just saying you think it is wrong and somebody ought to look into it gets you nothing. You need to have something to back it up.
-
One of the hardest real life gunnery feats to perform, is firing from a moving plane at a stationary ground target using a flexible mount gun. Most people don't have a natural sense for the number of RAD trail to account for the forward motion of their platform. Or even that they need to aim trailing of the target to hit it as they pass by it.
The OP obviously wasn't here with us in the AH1 days when 1000yd kills fighter to fighter were SOP. That was a bone of contention from Anthony Williams who used to spend time in our forums and I think even played the game. As for the ballistics, even he accepted the limitations of computer games.
I almost thought for a moment I was reading some of the arguments over at WT's forums in this post. Especially about Russian planes.
Tony's WEB Site.
http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/index.html
-
2. Better plane models all around.
It could be a lot better. Many of the planes are what I call over modeled, but my biggest gripe is the bias towards certain planes. Particularly the Russian planes. This is a whole 10 page argument in itself. Let me just succinctly say that there needs to be a better balance.
Do you have any data that supports your claim some planes are over modeled? If so, send it to HTC. HTC, when provided sufficient data to support the claim has made adjustments to the flight model. It just takes more than "I think the flight model is over modeled".
-
Yes that is one shot from thousands that he shot. (and an eyeball estimate at that)Let alone the billions of shots that were fired. 800 yards shots are common in this game.
you almost have it figured out.
we fire more ammo in the game than anyone in the real world.
millions of rounds.. every day.
naturally rare shots are going to be made.. not that 800 is even rare.
-
800 yard shots from a ww2 aircraft are very rare
-
And it was very rare that a pilot could log as many hours (in simulated combat conditions) as is done in AH.
Practice makes 'perfect' - many tankers are better shots than was the norm under WWII combat situations. Same with fighter pilots and bomber gunners. As a population, we have far more practice (as we don't die) than any group of WWII participants.
-
800 yard shots from a ww2 aircraft are very rare
Clouds caused alot of problems when they had them :bhead
-
800 yards in ww2 was rare because of how few rounds pilots ever fired on the job at other planes. And the diminishing odds for causing any real damage due to dispersion, or for MG solid rounds, lack of kinetic energy. That 800yd spit5 kill, the damage was more likely due to the chemical content of the 20mm which holds a constant potential over range. And why self detonation fuses were used to protect noncombatants on the ground. The average range for self detonation was between 1000-1200yds. Heck the MK108 had an 1100m(1203yd) detonation range.
The K14 gyroscopic precession gunsight had lead and drop compensation accounted for, because only a small number of pilots were naturals at using a 100mph main ring to aim with. 800 yards was the maximum range for the K14 but, by 400 yards the .50 has slowed down to about 2\3 of it's initial velocity, while loosing half of it's kinetic energy(penetration power). This changes if you are 6 chasing a bomber and the tail gun rounds are combined with your velocity.
Do you know what the 100mph principle is for fixed gunnery?
After 12 years, I know 800 yards, straight line chase shooting, is about a 12Mil elevation of the pipper for the AN\M2 .50 and Hisso .404 20mm, level flight 300-400 TA. But you need to favor slightly left or right of the pipper if you only have wing mounted guns. If the con I'm chasing introduces even the smallest amount of turn, deflection allowances with a 100mph ring becomes a couple of times a year solid hit on that plane. Don't mistake the ability to hit "bombers" starting from 1000 out as you make your firing pass, for hitting cons in the game at 800-1000. Your closing speed is so high, your success is really from rounds being fired from around 600 and closer as you pass by the bomber.
Hitech does a very good job with his ballistics based on aircraft speed, alt, temp, air density and so forth. Over 12 years I've tested much of it trying to convince Hitech to change the game because I wanted something silly. I wanted spin drift and a 30ft dispersion cone at 437yds modeled in the MK108 round per the Rheinmetall-Borsig testing documents. First I had to find them and present the argument based on them.
You do know you are free to test anything you think is wrong. Then with real world data and documents, your offline testing results, submit it to HTC, or in here for peer review. Testing takes time and is a PITA unfortunately. But, it lends more credence to your assertions, while gaining a few allies to even go out themselves and take another look at the historical data. Hitech seems to like numbers and facts more than feelings. But, he is also very hard on bad numbers and facts if he chooses to become involved.
So......where are your testing results for us to peer review???????????????????
-
800 yard shots from a ww2 aircraft are very rare
they didn't have unlimited ammo, planes, or lives either.
quick google shows a 50bmg is still ~1800fps at 800 yds. still carrying ~4700ft lbs of energy.. thats considerably more than what a 30 cal does at the muzzle. (~2900 ft lbs for 30/06 and ~2500 ft lbs for 303)
in fact a 50bmg has as much energy at 2000 yds as a 30/06 at 550 apparently!
-
800 yard shots from a ww2 aircraft are very rare
Marion Eugene Carl once quoted over Guadalcanal "I dove to avoid a Zero, out of the corner of my eye I noticed a Zero attempting to turn around and get on the 6 of another Wildcat, I threw the Wildcat over and fired a burst at what I guessed was 800 to 1000 yards and the Zeke caught fire and trailed away".
David McCampbell is another to shoot down a Japanese plane on his "Ace in a Day" tirade at the Marianas Turkey Shoot with an 800+ yard shot on a Judy.
Wolfgang Treuding was a JG 51 pilot who did a head on attack with an IL-2 at 1200 yards+, dove away after his initial burst and watched the Il-2 crash; he assumed he killed the pilot for his 32nd victory?.
431st FS has a clear example of long range "gunnery" - they were due to escort B-24's departing from NadZab airstrip No 3 to attack Hollandia; the P-38s of the 431st were over head and were jumped by 15 Japanese fighters. 1st Lt. Frank Monk ordered the pilots to drop their drop tanks when he saw the enemy aircraft 1,000ft above them, diving from the right towards the Lightnings in front of him. The "Oscars" were heading for the tail section of "Green Flight" which was immediately in front of him, so Monk forced the Japanese pilots to turn away from their intended targets by breaking into them head on. One Ki-43 flew straight at him and from a range of 1200 yards 1st Lt. Monk open fired, the Ki-43 broke right with pieces of his canopy, engine and wing coming off. 2nd Lt. Horace "Bo" Reeves was a new pilot in the squadron flying on Monk's wing throughout the mission and saw the Ki-43 burst into Flames and disintegrated with the well aimed head on shot.
While true - not all attacks were done at such range, some times it was necessary. Major Jack Rittmayer was killed by a head on shot from a Ki-84 from around 800 yards; Rittmayer's P-38 was completely destroyed from the head on shot.
McCampbell used 1000 yard Shots to cause the Judy's to "Spread" apart, enabling him to pick them off one by one, most cases it was a head on shot; unlike Aces high where you just end up in a "tower" and can take off again, many cases men lost their lives.
So in the argument was it "uncommon" - there is no supporting evidence. Richard Bong once said he couldn't hit the side of a Barn from 20 feet away; often firing at targets well out of distance, same for Hans-Joachim Marseille. Marseille admitted his gunnery was horrible, shooting from targets beyond 800 yards; eventually he taught himself to be a marksmanship and it latter paid off. The guy who once fired at a Hurricane that was out of range in early 1940, eventually became ace in a day on 24th September 1941.
-
The idea that a 50 cal bullet can fly anything close to strait and true at 800 yards is absurd. The bullet drop in AH is better than some other games, but it isn't close to reality. It certainly isn't the best representative of what happens when the bullet leaves the barrel of a moving aircraft at 10 feet to 30,000 + altitude.
The trade off for cannons versus MG's is better hitting power but at a increased weight, less ammunition and a lower rate of fire. The additional weight has to be compensated for. A cannon shell weighs more it drops more with equal muzzle velocity. Add 3 or 4- 20 mm guns to the front of a aircraft there has to be a lot of adjustments, particularly on light aircraft with small frames and short fuselages.
How many kills do you think, Hartmann had long range? 1 out of 352? 5 out of 352? Guenther Rall? Bong? 1 of 40? 5 of 40? Manfred von Richthofen? And that is just comparing shots to kills. Not even shots to...Almost got that one. Still rare no matter how you rationalize it.
-
The idea that a 50 cal bullet can fly anything close to strait and true at 800 yards is absurd. The bullet drop in AH is better than some other games, but it isn't close to reality. It certainly isn't the best representative of what happens when the bullet leaves the barrel of a moving aircraft at 10 feet to 30,000 + altitude.
How far off is it? At what altitude? I recall seeing some posts (probably Bustr's) showing bullet drop actually changing depending on alt. Where is it not right and by how much?
Wiley.
-
The idea that a 50 cal bullet can fly anything close to strait and true at 800 yards is absurd. The bullet drop in AH is better than some other games, but it isn't close to reality. It certainly isn't the best representative of what happens when the bullet leaves the barrel of a moving aircraft at 10 feet to 30,000 + altitude.
HiTech says that the drag is factored into the round and the drag varies correctly with speed and altitude, which is one reason the bullets fired from bomber tail guns seem to go further, less drag due to less speed due to the movement of the firing platform. The bullets also exhibit correct drops based on gravity and travel time. Use .target while offline to test it. If you can demonstrate that the rounds retain too much energy or don't drop fast enough, it can be changed.
The trade off for cannons versus MG's is better hitting power but at a increased weight, less ammunition and a lower rate of fire. The additional weight has to be compensated for. A cannon shell weighs more it drops more with equal muzzle velocity. Add 3 or 4- 20 mm guns to the front of a aircraft there has to be a lot of adjustments, particularly on light aircraft with small frames and short fuselages.
Why would more weight make it drop faster? 10 meters per second per second. That is 1G and it affects a .303 just the same as a 57mm cannon round.
As to the weight of the guns, that is modeled into the aircraft. Why mention it here? It doesn't seem relevant. To rate of fire, some 20mm cannons actually beat the Browning .50 on a per gun basis, and aren't all that much heavier. The US Navy rated a single M2 20mm cannon (Hispano Mk II) installation as being equal in firepower to a triple Browning M2 .50 installation. That would make the Spitfire Mk XVI's firepower about equal to a eight gun P-47D.
How many kills do you think, Hartmann had long range? 1 out of 352? 5 out of 352? Guenther Rall? Bong? 1 of 40? 5 of 40? Manfred von Richthofen? And that is just comparing shots to kills. Not even shots to...Almost got that one. Still rare no matter how you rationalize it.
WWI guns were very much less powerful and much shorter ranged.
Yes, kill distances in AH are unhistorically long ranged. The only way to make them historically ranged seems to be to artificially make the aspects of gunnery that can be made harder, well, harder to compensate for the things that cannot be made harder and are simply easier than the real deal.
-
The idea that a 50 cal bullet can fly anything close to strait and true at 800 yards is absurd.
ask some long range target shooters... one of the first results on google is video of a frickin 223(!) hitting an 11x17" target at 860 yards.
why don't you do some research instead of just going by how you feel things should be.
-
The faster drop off past 400 by 20mm and larger rounds is due to drag. The 20mm and larger rounds have a greater surface area than the .50, so experience more slowing down from drag. An exception is the ShVAK 20mm round, a 23ft drop at 1000m versus the Hisso 20mm 43ft drop at 1000yds, versus the .50 25ft at 1000yds. The ShVAK 20mm is about half the weight and length of the Hisso with similar ballistics to the AN\M2.
1000m = 914yd
MG's loose effectiveness past 400 except in the case of an aircraft flying at the gun. This is not to say .50 won't punch holes in aluminum at 1000yds. It will have problems against armored structures and thicker structures like self sealing fuel tanks or engine blocks\cylinders. But with a 38, you still have that chemical potential round from the 20mm.
Hitech's representation of the random dispersion cone at given ranges is within the best he can duplicate from static ballistics data. Granted, induced dispersion due to turbulence and bomber prop wash bouncing the fighter is not modeled. I'm not sure if any other air combat game models it either.
And yes I tested the AN\M2, Hisso 20mm, MG151\20 and MK108 from SL up to 30k once. Hitech has faithfully modeled speed, alt, temp, and air pressure effects upon the rounds. And it also got me an arse chewing by Hitech for arguing as far out in left field over the ballistics I was testing, as your keeping this POST going by arguing down to heads of pins and numbers of angels.
If you want to tell Hitech you don't like him for some reason, don't attack his work when we all know it is an approximation of reality. Other wise, this is a kiddy game, and one of the best on the market for what it delivers.
-
I never realized HT had gone that far with the ballistics. Very informative post yall.
-
ask some long range target shooters... one of the first results on google is video of a frickin 223(!) hitting an 11x17" target at 860 yards.
why don't you do some research instead of just going by how you feel things should be.
Big difference shooting on the ground versus shooting in the air
-
Big difference shooting on the ground versus shooting in the air
Ahh.... bullets don't tend to travel very far when they are in dirt. :devil
But taking what you meant and not what you said,
You are correct, the wind tends to be much more constant and the airless dense when you are shooting up high in a plane. So things are different.
HiTech
-
Dispersion should be higher at disdistance my opinion.
Getting a smoking engine at 1.5k icon distance out doing a high 12 attack seems to be the norm. I could take that , even if it's not realistic, if I could do any damage at the bloody thing shooting me with same guns on my plane.
Some bomber types invites drone warping, where as others seem to lose drones easy.
Effective gunnery against fighter targets where 400 and bombers 600 meters. You could probably find claims of incredible ranges kills, but in real life 1000 or 800 yards is very hard to judge from a pilots pov.