Help and Support Forums => Help and Training => Topic started by: FESS67 on September 18, 2016, 02:09:17 AM
Title: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: FESS67 on September 18, 2016, 02:09:17 AM
I get very frustrated with gunnery at the moment. I cannot understand why it too so long for me to connect.
I was zoomed in at first and then zoomed out. seems zoomed out is better. I really do not think I needed to aim off more given the vectors of our aircraft but we can clearly see my bullets hitting the ground behind the target.
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: nrshida on September 18, 2016, 02:26:36 AM
I don't use 50 cals at all but to me it looked like you weren't pulling enough lead by a long way. Have you read 'Bag the Hun'?
About shooting, if you've got the yips you'll get nowhere until you first get rid of that idea. I have a few techniques to help if you need them.
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: FESS67 on September 18, 2016, 02:31:21 AM
Seriously any more lead and he would have almost been out of shot. Plus, do you see how close I am? Why do I hit when not zoomed in?
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: Kingpin on September 18, 2016, 03:12:57 AM
Seriously any more lead and he would have almost been out of shot. Plus, do you see how close I am?
Notice your G-meter right before you zoom in. You are pulling over 2 G's when you start shooting and 3 G's when you finally pull out of your dive. You are not flying in a straight line here, you are pulling a circle at the bottom of a dive. So, your bullets are not flying straight out to the pipper (your aim point), instead, they are dropping dramatically below your line of sight. Had you been unloaded (1G), flying in a straight line, you might have hit with your initial amount of lead, but in this case you clearly need more lead due to the G-pull.
Seriously any more lead and he would have almost been out of shot.
Yep. The same as trying to shoot someone while pulling a high G turn. With the proper lead amount, they are under your nose.
One solution to this is to set up a high over the nose view and get used to shooting from that view. The Pony has a very good over the nose view actually if you push your view all the way up and all the way to the left or right (I use left, as most lufberys seem to go left and I can then still see the terrain while pulling lead). You will have to get used to where your aim point is, though, as you won't have the reflector sight. You can use a "death dot" on your monitor, or simply get used to where the aim point is through practice.
Another solution is to use an "out of plane" attack, where you come in from an angle rather than dead six. The off angle will allow you to roll into your target and keep them out from under your nose. This takes some practice and can reduce your time on target, but it can be a very effective bomber attack method. The out of plane attack also makes you a harder target for the bomber gunners as well.
Plus, do you see how close I am? Why do I hit when not zoomed in?
In this case, I don't think the distance is a major factor, but the G's force at the time of shooting is.
As far as zoom, my guess is when you aren't zoomed in you probably apply more lead because you have a wider field of view and are anticipating the shot more than "aiming" the pipper.
Hope these comments help. Feel free to hit me up if you want to practice shooting at me in the TA some time.
<S>
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: nrshida on September 18, 2016, 10:03:36 AM
Seriously any more lead and he would have almost been out of shot.
Evidently not. How do you explain the shots visibly falling behind? The weapon system on the aircraft you were flying suggests tracking shots. Bag the Hun might help you with your angle off. Someone even made a video of it:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsIz2bIBLwM
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: bustr on September 18, 2016, 03:00:26 PM
Under a 2G load your 50 cal rounds have an IP point at 300yds of 20ft below the static set point at 1G during harmonization. When you opened fire in your dive, you aimed way too low for your G load. Same thing happens when you dive down to pick someone while trying to pull ahead of them with a snap shot as they begin their break turn. The requirements of the 100mph principle in the turn exacerbated by G impacting trajectory makes the shot a low probability.
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: Dawger on September 18, 2016, 03:35:10 PM
Unloaded is 0 G not 1 G.
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: Kingpin on September 18, 2016, 04:04:57 PM
From an aerodynamics standpoint, you are correct that 1G is a G load. But the question and answer are in the context of discussing gunnery.
For gunnery purposes, I am referring to "unloaded" as not pulling any radial G. In my example above, I am saying that if he were flying 1G (not pulling any additional radial G) the bullets would rise to and converge at the pipper - an "unloaded" shot in gunnery terms.
The point being, when pulling G's during a tracking shot, additional lead is required.
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: SPKmes on September 18, 2016, 05:07:28 PM
yes Fess.....I am really struggling to get to grips within AH3....have no idea why but shots I used to make are just not happening....I can empty a full ammo load and not inflict any discernible damage it seems.... I know I didn't have the greatest aim before...now though I am worse than ever....finding it very frustrating..... Some of mine is the sounds...getting used to the different sounds is getting me all messed up...SA is way down but getting there....gunnery though is really doing my head in....
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: Lusche on September 18, 2016, 05:31:03 PM
Can't wait for the tour to finish to investigate possible fighter hit% changes on a global scale :x
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: JunkyII on September 19, 2016, 09:54:10 AM
My current issue with gunnery in AH3...I've always had bad aim because I suck, Screen jumps everytime I use vox then whenever the game feels like...completely random, and the hit sprites are throwing me off, they look like I had just hit them with a tator but really it was just a few 50s
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: NatCigg on September 19, 2016, 11:12:17 AM
you aim looked off to me. Your zoom eliminates view of the g indicator; from what is visible you were pulling 2-3 gs throughout the firing time.
It appears to be operator error. Try shooting drones offline to get your confidence up.
:salute
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: FLS on September 19, 2016, 11:38:06 AM
I get very frustrated with gunnery at the moment. I cannot understand why it too so long for me to connect.
I was zoomed in at first and then zoomed out. seems zoomed out is better. I really do not think I needed to aim off more given the vectors of our aircraft but we can clearly see my bullets hitting the ground behind the target.
Try the gunsight aid in the training arena or offline to see the proper lead. CTRL-TAB to select friendly lock and TAB to select the target aircraft. You will see that a hard turning aircraft often disappears under your nose when you pull enough lead.
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: Lusche on September 19, 2016, 11:40:56 AM
Don't need to see any G indicator. It's obvious that you are giving to little lead. With such an approach, you must put your pipper way in front of the bombers. With such a fast diving approach you not only have to compensate for your own maneuver, but also for the path of the bombers, which are not flying in the same plane (level) as you.
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: NatCigg on September 19, 2016, 12:33:53 PM
when you see his spray catch up he is very close and also settling into the bombers vector. still, the ark of the shot caused by his turn required the amount of lead he gave at the initial point of firing. For contact at the initial point the required lead would need to be magnified by the distance considering both of lusches points. I would guess out side the ring and possibly have to look over the nose a bit? busters factual understanding of how to use a gunsight could give some good incite towards finding a acurate visual mark.
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: Ack-Ack on September 19, 2016, 01:06:27 PM
The only issue I have had with gunnery in AH3 was the lack of hit sprites, other than that I've found that my hit % has gone up in AH3.
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: Gman on September 19, 2016, 01:11:36 PM
IMO it's related to how the player views the screen, perhaps the FOV differences in AH3 is responsible, I'm not sure, but I DO know that I felt a lot of players once forced into AH3 (no Ah2 option, haha) would notice the gunnery had changed a lot. For me, just increasing the amount of lead I put into shots seemed to bring my accuracy back - prior "holds" just weren't enough, and shots that looked "on" in AH2 just aren't in AH3. Everyone will adjust in time I think, but there IS a difference in how the guns shoot/connect/etc. I like it myself, it's just opinion, but I think that hitting at longer ranges is much more difficult, and probably represents what it was like in reality a touch better.
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: Dobs on September 19, 2016, 01:30:06 PM
Question on gunnery from a noob.
Is the effect of yaw on gunnery programmed in here?
In real life, bullets only take 80% of the yaw input...
Reference from a more modern aircraft...but still valid..
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: bustr on September 19, 2016, 01:33:09 PM
I think the brighter hit sprites and tracers will help many get up to speed faster and learn to compensate if more lead is needed. I have noticed with testing, this could be only anecdotal, that G load is affecting your expected round trajectory more so than in AH2. Or more likely, it could simply be my new computer is showing me more than the previous 24 months testing alpha\beta. It reminds me more like an AAF pursuit curves chart I've read.
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: bustr on September 19, 2016, 01:36:55 PM
Reads like the firing solution problems for a side gunner in our bombers. You can see the same thing in the drone circle if you kick a slide as you shoot and watch your tracers. You can even see it flying level with the target up in front of you (.target range heading pitch). Just aim for one side or the other of the target, and induce a slide while pulling the trigger.
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: FLS on September 19, 2016, 01:43:36 PM
The speed and direction of the aircraft is part of the ballistic model. You should be able to see that strafing the ground or water while skidding.
So the gist of my question is, "does my sight lie to me in AHIII due to yaw"? I think the answer I'm getting is "go try it and see".
Bustr--I agree with the effect of G on rounds being robust....never flew AH2, but from other sims it seems more "realistic"-- in that shooting under G is a hard thing to accomplish.
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: FLS on September 20, 2016, 12:49:19 AM
So the gist of my question is, "does my sight lie to me in AHIII due to yaw"? I think the answer I'm getting is "go try it and see".
Dobs, I tested this in the F4U-1A at 300 IAS as well as in the Me 262 at 475 IAS. I saw no skidding effect on the rounds (the rounds impacted the target exactly at the pipper when firing at convergence with a fair amount of skid -- starting with my nose left or right of the target and holding hard rudder into the target, steadying the pipper and firing.)
That said, Aces High does model the effect of air density on bullet drop, as can be seen by firing at a target at 1000 yards at sea level vs. at high alt. Perhaps at higher speeds like the 400-500 kt mentioned in your modern example there might be a yawing effect, but I have not reproduced that yet.
Are you familiar with the .target command and the syntax for using it? If not, I can elaborate if you would like to conduct your own tests.
The .target command is quite useful for discovering lots of nuances of the ballistics of various guns packages in AH.
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: Dobs on September 20, 2016, 06:44:22 AM
Dobs, I tested this in the F4U-1A at 300 IAS as well as in the Me 262 at 475 IAS. I saw no skidding effect on the rounds (the rounds impacted the target exactly at the pipper when firing at convergence with a fair amount of skid -- starting with my nose left or right of the target and holding hard rudder into the target, steadying the pipper and firing.)
That said, Aces High does model the effect of air density on bullet drop, as can be seen by firing at a target at 1000 yards at sea level vs. at high alt. Perhaps at higher speeds like the 400-500 kt mentioned in your modern example there might be a yawing effect, but I have not reproduced that yet.
Are you familiar with the .target command and the syntax for using it? If not, I can elaborate if you would like to conduct your own tests.
The .target command is quite useful for discovering lots of nuances of the ballistics of various guns packages in AH.
Thank you Kingpin! I would have been surprised if it was modeled as most don't know it exists. In the world of tracer correction aiming, it is almost superfluous anyway.
The driving force behind this was watching nose kicks to "throw" bullets your way....no yaw drag on the aircraft and seems to work:)
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: FLS on September 20, 2016, 07:09:14 AM
Dobs, I tested this in the F4U-1A at 300 IAS as well as in the Me 262 at 475 IAS. I saw no skidding effect on the rounds (the rounds impacted the target exactly at the pipper when firing at convergence with a fair amount of skid -- starting with my nose left or right of the target and holding hard rudder into the target, steadying the pipper and firing.)
That said, Aces High does model the effect of air density on bullet drop, as can be seen by firing at a target at 1000 yards at sea level vs. at high alt. Perhaps at higher speeds like the 400-500 kt mentioned in your modern example there might be a yawing effect, but I have not reproduced that yet.
Are you familiar with the .target command and the syntax for using it? If not, I can elaborate if you would like to conduct your own tests.
The .target command is quite useful for discovering lots of nuances of the ballistics of various guns packages in AH.
Did you try shooting at the ground instead of at a moving target?
You might want to use nose guns to avoid convergence range issues.
I'm thinking you tested the crosswind at the yaw angle and any effect is lost in the dispersion.
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: Kingpin on September 20, 2016, 04:20:07 PM
Thank you Kingpin! I would have been surprised if it was modeled as most don't know it exists. In the world of tracer correction aiming, it is almost superfluous anyway.
I'm not quite ready to say it isn't modeled, just that there wasn't an observable effect for me at IAS of 300-450 mph. There isn't a whole lot of shooting going on in AH at 500+ mph IAS with full rudder deflection, so I would say it's superfluous more for that reason.
The driving force behind this was watching nose kicks to "throw" bullets your way....no yaw drag on the aircraft and seems to work:)
While doing my testing, kicking and holding rudder to steady the pipper, there is a noticeable drop in air speed due to the yaw drag, especially when using full rudder deflection. The 262 lost speed quickly and required some time to get back above 450 IAS to test again. With a quick nose kick, and/or less than full rudder deflection, the drag effect is less noticeable, but it is modeled.
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: Kingpin on September 20, 2016, 04:48:14 PM
I'm thinking you tested the crosswind at the yaw angle and any effect is lost in the dispersion.
This is possible. I intentionally tried to keep the dispersion as close to the the un-yawed pattern as I could. Whenever I am doing ballistics testing, I carefully trim the plane to be level at the bulls-eye and fire a burst to see what the "normal" tightest dispersion pattern looks like at that range. There is always some initial oscillation when yawing, so when testing I hold the rudder steady for a moment until the oscillation diminishes and and I fire, as this tends to yield a more "normal" bullet dispersion pattern. This is a "trick" I try to use in combat as well -- kick, hold, fire -- instead of kick-and-fire, as less oscillation will yield a tighter dispersion pattern.
I'm no aerodynamics expert, but I think the biggest factors (of yaw effect on ballistics) would be the air speed and the range. At WWII aircraft speeds (esp. while yawing) and WWII firing ranges, I simply think any effect is just negligible.
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: bustr on September 20, 2016, 04:50:38 PM
Sometime just linking directly gets and eyeball by Hitech.
I'm no aerodynamics expert, but I think the biggest factors (of yaw effect on ballistics) would be the air speed and the range. At WWII aircraft speeds (esp. while yawing) and WWII firing ranges, I simply think any effect is just negligible.
From the P47 Gunnery section: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-kwhapBgCtYLUEtR2VmanFzY1U/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-kwhapBgCtYLUEtR2VmanFzY1U/view?usp=sharing)
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: Scca on September 21, 2016, 08:14:30 AM
I don't use 50 cals at all but to me it looked like you weren't pulling enough lead by a long way.
Agreed..
I do a lot of bomber hunting, and have pretty good success (32 bombers last tour). I fly the 47M mostly, so I am familiar with 50 cals.
You were defiantly low/behind them early in the pass. I will save a film for you of one of my passes, but at the approach angle you were at, you should have barely been able to see the nose of the bomber to get hits on the main body half way down.
That said, my hit% is way down because I can't see the tracers. I hope they fix it, but if they don't, I will adjust eventually.
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: FLS on September 21, 2016, 10:54:00 AM
From the P47 Gunnery section: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-kwhapBgCtYLUEtR2VmanFzY1U/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-kwhapBgCtYLUEtR2VmanFzY1U/view?usp=sharing)
Context is always nice. I think the effect of yaw when shooting at ground targets is well known even if the percentage of error isn't.
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: Dobs on September 21, 2016, 12:39:14 PM
Yaw effect when shooting...doesn't matter air or ground...effect is the same.
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: FLS on September 21, 2016, 12:43:06 PM
The forward motion of the aircraft added to the projectiles is canceled by the fixed distance target moving at the same speed.
Umm...no.
So you are saying the fact that you are in a skid and because your target is moving, the bullets fired into a windstream of 200-400 mph are not affected?
You are flying along at 360kph with 5 degrees of slip and fire at some object 300m away centered in your gunsight. You bullet has a sideways motion of 100m/sec x sin(5) due to your forward motion being 5 degrees off your direction of aim. Sin(5) = .0872, in one full second the bullet will be about 9m off to the side towards the direction of flight. 300m takes more like 1/3rd of a second to reach. IF the target is flying parallel to our plane at the same speed then he will move to the side at the same speed as the shots do or just a tiny bit faster -- he will appear to stay directly in your sights while your shots appear to be curving slightly away from your pipper. IF the target is flying straight away from your sight, 5 degrees off parallel to your course then your shots will miss by a meter or more. IF the target is coming at you then the drift of your shots will be opposite to his drift, miss by more.
This is simple geometry. When geometry is unreal then check your assumptions again.
The longer the range, the greater the gap to deal with. At under 100m the bullet speed makes the difference very small, by 200m you might not hit the part of the plane you aimed for, at 300m+ it's easy to miss a target.
If you are flying along and see an enemy plane close to the pipper then rudder over to center it, you are probably in slip right then. Just know it and deal with it, the shot does not go where the pointed at the moment the shot was made. Your speed, the bullet speed and the angle of slip have everything to do with it even before looking at a target.
Believing that your shots all go where the pipper pointed is the dweeb mistake not to make. They don't.
Add in that ruddering the pipper over adds yaw which makes one wing go up and the other go down as well as gets some nose up or down (tiny shifts depending on the rudder use) and in general, wobbles the nose of the plane. Oh but that's supposed to be a modeling problem! Is it a pilot problem? Tiny nose shift = pipper moved 1+ tics!
Just to shake you all up, there's the vertical equivalent of slip as well. When I am flying slow my AOA must be higher to generate the lift I need to follow my path. When I am flying fast my AOA must be lower. That moves my sight up and down relative to my path. At some speed it's probably right but yeah there's vertical slip.
Break Break
Anyhow, it appears from flying the game that it is not modeled (nor has it been modeled in anygame that I've been in).
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: FLS on September 21, 2016, 05:38:58 PM
Dobs I already mentioned the yaw angle crosswind effect. I think it's negligible given the gun dispersion and typical yaw angle. Kingpin already told you drag is modeled.
Edit: missed an arrow on my tablet.
AFAIK your pic shows what happens in AH. Don't forget the yaw adds an opposed force to the side drag from the forward motion of the aircraft.
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: bustr on September 21, 2016, 06:07:18 PM
DOBs this is an interesting show of physics aptitude and an exhilarating whizzing match to watch. Usually in the past when someone new to Aces High starts picking these kinds of tech matches with ongoing posts targeting the real world tech and how Hitech programed it. They are either trying to use it as an interview to get noticed by the Trainers, or become the new big dog of the forums. Were you a Trainer or one of WB's go to experts for everything before you left that game?
The real answer you want about this kind of ballistics modeling can only come from Hitech.
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: Dobs on September 21, 2016, 10:46:01 PM
Just trying to figure out the gunnery model, i.e. if the sight is lying to me if I kick rudder.
From what I've seen....it shoots where it is pointed.
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: bustr on September 21, 2016, 11:12:31 PM
You have opened a window for a breeze that someone like FLS enjoys because you argue to his bliss. So in War Birds were you a member of the trainers there?
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: FLS on September 22, 2016, 12:17:22 AM
Just trying to figure out the gunnery model, i.e. if the sight is lying to me if I kick rudder.
From what I've seen....it shoots where it is pointed.
Most guns do. You want to consider momentum from the aircraft's forward motion as well as drag from the atmosphere.
If you get in a B-17 and man a turret you can put a target abeam and shoot directly crosswind for maximum drag perpendicular to trajectory. :aok
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: nrshida on September 22, 2016, 01:02:42 AM
See Rule #4
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: FESS67 on September 22, 2016, 04:25:05 AM
I really really like Dobs.
He is great fun to fly against and is obviously technically competent. I have not yet found myself on the same side as him but when I do I will make sure to fight as hard for him as I fight for anyone....as long as the shot does not demand G forces or yaw, since we know I will miss every time :D
HITECH - seriously, new blood is great for this game and he fights a good fight. Call the fan boys to order at least to a point where they can at least debate an issue openly. <peace>
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: Dobs on September 22, 2016, 08:31:37 AM
Appreciate the vote of confidence guys.
Why Bustr wants to know my background is beyond me, but yes I was a WB trainer in the past. Haven't been a trainer since 05 though.
So Bustr, now that I've answered my question. Here is yours--why does it matter if someone comes on the board and asks questions, or shows aptitude in a specific area?
FLS has been polite, and backed up his answers--I'm not bucking for the Training Corp--been there done that, got the T-shirt. I'm not bucking for a CM job--no desire. But I'm always about trying to help with whatever game/project I'm involved in.
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: FLS on September 22, 2016, 09:45:11 AM
Bustr likes to make sure the new guys feel welcome and appreciated. :D
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: Dawger on September 22, 2016, 10:40:23 AM
He is great fun to fly against and is obviously technically competent. I have not yet found myself on the same side as him but when I do I will make sure to fight as hard for him as I fight for anyone....as long as the shot does not demand G forces or yaw, since we know I will miss every time :D
HITECH - seriously, new blood is great for this game and he fights a good fight. Call the fan boys to order at least to a point where they can at least debate an issue openly. <peace>
I wouldn't worry too much about Dobs dealing with the feeble attempts here to sidetrack his desire to learn what he can about how AH gunnery operates.
And its an important question for Dobs to get an answer to.
When someone has trained to perform a particular skill under a particular set of rules, in this case the rules of physics, learning to perform that same skill under a different set of rules, one must first learn what the rules are and then erase the the old training while re-learning the skill.
Someone who learned to played football on earth will have trouble playing on the moon for a while but will eventually excel.
Someone who has always played on the moon has no clue how much harder it is to play on earth and how much they would suck at it.
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: FLS on September 22, 2016, 10:52:40 AM
Dobs was answered on page 2. :D
Discussion is welcome as is Dobs. :salute
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: bustr on September 22, 2016, 03:58:18 PM
Like to keep the player's stats straight so I don't get any ringers with my fantasy football picks.
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: Kingpin on September 23, 2016, 01:32:16 AM
Since I find this topic interesting...
I went ahead and did some testing in a B-29, firing the top turret and left waist gun at 90-degrees to the air flow (flying north, target at 600 yards due west (.target 600 270).
Unless I am interpreting the results incorrectly, it appears that Aces High does model a drag effect on bullets due to the airstream.
Also, the air density does appear to be factored in as well. Note the difference in the two results below. Both are at the exact same air speed (257) and target range (600). The only difference is altitude (5K and 20K). It appears the drag was significantly less at 20K.
Result at 5K: (http://i1253.photobucket.com/albums/hh599/Rhino551988/B29_rng600_alt5K_spd257_zpsiy6g0tsv.png)
Result at 20K: (http://i1253.photobucket.com/albums/hh599/Rhino551988/B29_rng600_alt20K_spd257_zpskn4a7x4m.jpg)
So, this begs the question why did I not see any noticeable effect in my yawing test in a fighter...?
Any ideas?
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: FLS on September 23, 2016, 09:25:03 AM
If you recall my comment was the yaw angle, range, and dispersion didn't allow a noticeable result. :aok
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: Kingpin on September 23, 2016, 01:40:23 PM
If you recall my comment was the yaw angle, range, and dispersion didn't allow a noticeable result. :aok
Yes. I came to the same conclusion when I told Dobs that air-density is modeled but that I couldn't produce an observable effect. I wasn't ready to rule out modeling of bullet deflection due to the slipstream, just that I couldn't "see" a dramatic effect.
I thought it could be due to my testing methods as well, so I wanted to raise the question. I think it would be interesting if I could see a smaller effect in fighter, just to prove it exists.
If firing at 257mph into the slipstream at 90-degrees yielded an average deflection of 60 feet at a range of 600 yards (assuming a bullet flight time of about .7 seconds - guestimated)...
What would the expected deflection be when firing into a 257mph slipstream at 15-degrees at a target of 300 yards (assuming a flight time of around .35 seconds)?
Any math-wiz want to tackle that one? Anyone, anyone? Bueller? Bueller? :)
<S>
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: Dawger on September 23, 2016, 01:55:19 PM
Yes. I came to the same conclusion when I told Dobs that air-density is modeled but that I couldn't produce an observable effect. I wasn't ready to rule out modeling of bullet deflection due to the slipstream, just that I couldn't "see" a dramatic effect.
I thought it could be due to my testing methods as well, so I wanted to raise the question. I think it would be interesting if I could see a smaller effect in fighter, just to prove it exists.
If firing at 257mph into the slipstream at 90-degrees yielded an average deflection of 60 feet at a range of 600 yards (assuming a bullet flight time of about .7 seconds - guestimated)...
What would the expected deflection be when firing into a 257mph slipstream at 15-degrees at a target of 300 yards (assuming a flight time of around .35 seconds)?
Any math-wiz want to tackle that one? Anyone, anyone? Bueller? Bueller? :)
<S>
If one assumes 1/6 th of the force vector applied (15 versus 90 degrees) over half the distance the result would be a 5 foot deflection.
Thats a total SWAG though
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: FLS on September 23, 2016, 01:57:59 PM
Are you allowing for the different frontal area presented to the side load?
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: Dobs on September 23, 2016, 04:27:00 PM
So you are saying the fact that you are in a skid and because your target is moving, the bullets fired into a windstream of 200-400 mph are not affected?
You are flying along at 360kph with 5 degrees of slip and fire at some object 300m away centered in your gunsight. You bullet has a sideways motion of 100m/sec x sin(5) due to your forward motion being 5 degrees off your direction of aim. Sin(5) = .0872, in one full second the bullet will be about 9m off to the side towards the direction of flight. 300m takes more like 1/3rd of a second to reach. IF the target is flying parallel to our plane at the same speed then he will move to the side at the same speed as the shots do or just a tiny bit faster -- he will appear to stay directly in your sights while your shots appear to be curving slightly away from your pipper. IF the target is flying straight away from your sight, 5 degrees off parallel to your course then your shots will miss by a meter or more. IF the target is coming at you then the drift of your shots will be opposite to his drift, miss by more.
This is simple geometry. When geometry is unreal then check your assumptions again.
The longer the range, the greater the gap to deal with. At under 100m the bullet speed makes the difference very small, by 200m you might not hit the part of the plane you aimed for, at 300m+ it's easy to miss a target.
If you are flying along and see an enemy plane close to the pipper then rudder over to center it, you are probably in slip right then. Just know it and deal with it, the shot does not go where the pointed at the moment the shot was made. Your speed, the bullet speed and the angle of slip have everything to do with it even before looking at a target.
Believing that your shots all go where the pipper pointed is the dweeb mistake not to make. They don't.
Add in that ruddering the pipper over adds yaw which makes one wing go up and the other go down as well as gets some nose up or down (tiny shifts depending on the rudder use) and in general, wobbles the nose of the plane. Oh but that's supposed to be a modeling problem! Is it a pilot problem? Tiny nose shift = pipper moved 1+ tics!
Just to shake you all up, there's the vertical equivalent of slip as well. When I am flying slow my AOA must be higher to generate the lift I need to follow my path. When I am flying fast my AOA must be lower. That moves my sight up and down relative to my path. At some speed it's probably right but yeah there's vertical slip.
Break Break
Anyhow, it appears from flying the game that it is not modeled (nor has it been modeled in anygame that I've been in).
Diagram is correct , but your math is way off. The missing piece of your math is that you are not adding the forward velocity of the aircraft to the bullet angle of travel.
The computation needs to take into account the bullet coefficient and the change in velocity relative to your planes forward motion. Notice the diagram is show with and with out drag I.E. Vacuum and non vacuum.
The deflection you are speaking of is completely modeled and is do to the slowing of the bullet relative you to your forward motion. I.E. just as if you dropped a ball out side if no gravity and no drag it would keep flying with you. Add air drag and it will fall behind you just as the diagram. The same effect is why your bullets travel farther in rear gunner vs forward gunner.
There are 3 other forces on the bullet that are not modeled.
One spin of the bullet and having the velocity vector coming slightly from the side. I.E. has an AOA. 2nd one is do to lift generated do to AOA of the bullet do to the above issue. (note lift is not up but sideways) 3rd is the change in the drag coefficient do to the above described angle.
These 3 effects are very very minor and are made up for in dispersion.
HiTech
Title: Re: Gunnery woes - I think we are all feeling them at the moment
Post by: Dobs on September 30, 2016, 02:28:33 PM
Ty Hitech.
Seems I'm being a pain in the ass, so I'll stop.
I do appreciate your inputs and efforts at answering posts, but this is all qweepy stuff:)