Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Tac on February 12, 2002, 02:12:16 PM
-
Well, I got the Wild Wednesday prize that Sirloin of Beef kindly awarded ( big
!) yesterday.
Gun Camera Footage of WW2.
Ive never seen that much guncam film in one sitting. Its hard to think that I was seeing real stuff.. real people getting shot up. Sent chills up me spine.
The film has a lot of 109 and 190 vs. B-17 gun film, the tracers and guns being fired are easily ID'able as being cannons... and good lord those B17's took a toejamLOAD of punishment and kept going. Many of the guncams puts the LW fighters on the tail of the B17 shooting it up (tail gunner dead im sure :( ) .. they hit the outer engine on one wing... puting around 50 shells on it, then put 20 or so on the inboard engine.. the b17's engine didnt smoke or showed any sign of stopping.. though im sure that engine wouldve eventually died out. One 17 got a huge number of hits on its wingtip and it didnt rip out. The ONE thing I did see the B-17's losing easily was the vert. stabs when the LW shot the tail gunner up.
Thought: AH buffs are waaay too weak.
B17 gunners camera show the tail turret hitting many 109's and 190's as they passed.. yet the 109s and 190s did not "pop" as in AH. Im sure that its because not ALL guns in it was shooting at the LW fighter, but even then, it was a LOT of hits and that LW fighter kept going.
Thought: #$#@ AH turbolasers.
50 cals vs other planes: ALL of the guncams showing the P51 and P-47s shooting up LW and IJN/A planes were very consistent with the enemy fighter receiving a boatload of hits before something ripped or blew off. The part where they show P-47 film, theres about 10 scenes of a jug shooting 109's to pieces.. literally. Burst after burst of HITS and the 109 would shed metal bits but it would still turn and dive and tried to manouver. And these are CLOSE range shots. The 50 cals were very effective at punching the LW and IJN/A fighters to the ground, but a very long stream of hits was required.
Thought: in AH you barely have to put 40 rnds of 50 cal into a plane to bring it down. In this film that 109 took about 200 rnds or more. What gives?
OTH, they showed a guncam of a 109 putting a crapload of hits onto a P-47.. and it kept going and going.. the guncam ends by the 109 pilot peeling to the right... even though the P-47 was still flying straight. LOL.
Film of P-38 guncam shooting a 190 and an IJN buff: GOod LORD. Short tracer stream, the 190's wing and tail SNAPPED. IJN buff BLEW UP as the 38 strafed it from left wing to right wing.. then the hits centered on the right engine and POW! engine blows up and the buff spins 2 times on its missing wing and then blows up entirely.
Thought: Baaaa! nose guns rule. Missing in AH :)
A VERY cool thing I saw was some footage from P-40s shooting up LW ju-52's and 109's.
Thought: I wanna P-40 in AH :D
I then compared these gun films with what I had seen of BOB hurricane guncams.. and I must say that the .303 is VERY, VERY effective at close ranges.. them hurricanes could rip a He111 to shreds and make their engines fire up with a good burst of lead.. yet in AH the 303 cant kill a thing unless you put 900 rnds into it.
Are the .303's undermodeled in AH
Are the 50 cals overmodelled in AH? Or is it the damage model thats waaay undermodeled?
-
yes, the b17 was one tough bird, and the wing tips come off wayyyy to easy in AH
and i also thought that .50 cals are over modled, as i said in a thread b4, "the 50 cals are ALMOST as powerful as 20mm"
-
I then compared these gun films with what I had seen of BOB hurricane guncams.. and I must say that the .303 is VERY, VERY effective at close ranges.. them hurricanes could rip a He111 to shreds and make their engines fire up with a good burst of lead.. yet in AH the 303 cant kill a thing unless you put 900 rnds into it.
Are the .303's undermodeled in AH
Are the 50 cals overmodelled in AH? Or is it the damage model thats waaay undermodeled?
Notice the range in those videos. I'd guess the range is well under 100yds, close to 50yds? Go that close in AH and even the .303's/7.9mm's will shred the target to pieces.
Why don't people go this close in AH? Because they don't have to. A player can easily hit a target at 500yds in AH, with any weapon. But at that range, the effectiveness is already highly reduced, especially with non-explosive mg rounds.
I think this mostly a matter of the hit bubble size and the laser range finder. For a concrete example of the hit bubble issue, compare AH's long range gunnery to IL2's and you'll see what I mean.
In real life, hitting at ranges above 200yds was more luck than skill. Atleast the pilots hardly ever shot from that far... They went much closer, "until the target fills the windscreen". How often do you do this in AH?
I can understand HTC's point of view though, its a gameplay issue. However, this means that .303s/7.9mm mg's can feel really underpowered...
Camo
-
Tac:
What exactly is the name and publisher of the video. I would like to see it.
thanks,
Hooligan
-
http://www.ihffilm.com/r671.html < --- Hooligan.
"Notice the range in those videos. I'd guess the range is well under 100yds, close to 50yds? Go that close in AH and even the .303's/7.9mm's will shred the target to pieces"
Ive been at d85 of a con hitting him with the spitv's 303's (and conv. for the 303s s set to 100), and I still have to put half my ammo to get it to jerk something loose. Same goes for the 202. In Mindanao, Fariz made a 202/205 map.. I chased a low E 190 on the deck for almost 5 minutes pinging and pinging and pinging at ranges below 150 and it wasnt until the 190 stalled that he spun and augered. :p
Id say the range in those videos was real close. a 190 isnt that big from a rear view and it was BIG in the film.
The thing is that in these videos the planes being hit were at very close range, yet they took a lot of hits to bring down.. and thats from 50 cals. In AH if you are d100 or less on someone's 6 one little burst, even a shapshot will do monstrous damage.
Im just comparing the 2 things, the difference is huge imo.
-
Well I own the same video and we are not seeing the same things. It doesn't seem to take many .50 hits at all to take down a 109 or 190 when I watch it. I'll have to take a close look at it again. One thing you may be unaware of. Those gun camera clips are usually shown is slow motion so what looks like a few second burst might only be a half second.
Hooligan
-
I dont usually fly other than the 109 G2. After I run out of 20mm ammo, I switch to "windscreen" mode: get in close to 50-100 yds and let go with the 7.9mm's.
I remember one such an instance. I parked myself behind a C47 and peppered both of its engines with about 200 rounds each from about 50 yds range. First the engines started smoking, the wings lost some flaps and ailerons, finally the engines quit. I gave the final blow by shooting off the elevator with a long burst.
About 200 rounds of 7.9mm per engine, estimating 25% hits from that range, thats 50 hits to destroy the engine. Sounds about right. Has anyone done any empirical testing on this?
Camo
-
The reason why people don't go that close in AH is that due to net problems the enemy tends to warp across the screen that close. An evasive move from the enemy will bounce him offscreen and that's hardly what you want to happen.
Second thing with buffs is that the buff gunners are too hard. When was the last time you shot up the tailgunner of a b17 and then progressed to shoot his engines out?
Has never happened to me. It just keeps shooting at you untill the tail drops. Not to mention that the guns can fire through fuselage so if even 1 gunner is alive, he can probably shoot you from some gun.
-
"Those gun camera clips are usually shown is slow motion so what looks like a few second burst might only be a half second"
DAMN. I never thought about that. You may be right! :eek:
-
Think Hooligan has got a rel good point here.
Allso, I'd say the DM in AH is undermodelled in some aspects, where in real life you could put around 20x20 in a B17 before it went down (avergage, some took more, some took less) in AH you can easily put 30 or more rounds IF you don't hit the same place, it the same place such as a wing tip and they might go down after 10 rounds (B17's don't fly well with a wing tip gone).
This is the problem with AH DM IMO, getting quite old to have planes, hit 20mm, no dammage, do the same thing 10 times (by now the plane should be full of holes, staying up, maybe, manuverable? Sure not, make it back to base? Doubtfully).
We need more advanced DM in AH.
-
Now where's funked and his quote about Herr Stigler's shot up 109?
My point being: No way you will saw a plane in half (or a wing or much anything) with a burst of mg caliber ammo. Make a lot of holes in the skin yes, penetrate the pilot armor and the pilot yes, pierce fuel tanks yes but no sawing off wings and rear fuselages with a short burst.
AH has good ballistics. Every bullet is modeled but different ammo types are not -> good, not excellent. The damage model is very basic compared to the ballistics modelling. Beef it up and move the emphasis from major structural failure to critical system failures (engine, controls, pilot) as the reason of planes getting shot down and there we are. Such a DM might require modelling different ammo types so it'd be a lot of work.
-
I agree with Wilbus and SageFIN.
I think it has got to do with damage modelling rather than
gun damage. A plane can be shot up real bad, but it does not
necessarily mean structural failure. Powerful 20mms might
blow large chunks off the fuselage, but it won't necessarily
mean this damage will destroy a whole section of the plane
that is hit, throwing it off the flight path completely and
destroying the plane due to immediate crash.
Most of the gun-cam footage or historic photos I have seen
records fires, damaged or dead engine,occasional destruction
of wing or blowing up as the main factor of target plane
being destroyed.. rather than sawing off a whole vital section
and rendering the plane totally inoperable.
This sort of simplified damage model is what I think the main
reason behind those instances of '1-ping Hispano deaths' or
'700 yard 4-cannon spray and pray' deaths. In these instances
it is no doubt possible that a stray, lucky 20mm shot can hit
and seriously damage a plane, but the damage would be more like
a small section torn off from the vertical stabilizer or rudder,
elevators punctured and etc. This sort of damage would put the
enemy out of the game, but it still would probably let the
plane fly and hold together with the pilot inside struggling and
cursing. The real problem would come when the pilot tries to land
his plane after he escapes. Currently, in these instances, a
Hispano cannon bird would land one or two lucky pings at the tail
section(in many instances these areas never even pinged before)
and would just totally saw it off. The vertical/horizontal stabs,
or two elevators totally off, or a ping at the wing root totally
knocking it off.
The solution lies in better damage modelling. With better damage
modelling introduced, I predict taking a well aimed shot for
enough time would destroy the plane. The 600~800 yard spraying
so common with planes with guns that are able to hit up to very
far distances would cause distruptive handling for the guy who
is hit, but the plane would be able to limp away with speed..
the real problem coming in the landing sequence.
The case of a good contending flight game IL-2 demonstrates this.
Shots from out of critical range do land some successful hits,
possibly destroying parts of tail or puncturing areas of the wing.
But these sort of hits never ever just knock a plane outta the
sky like hitting a pin with a bowling ball. Only when an enemy
plane is well within range(in AH, it would be about 50~200 yards)
a destructive shot comes. And even in these cases the reason for
being shot down is heavy damage to the engine, fires starting,
control surfaces damaged and plane inoperable.. structural failure
like wing blown off is rare(unless it is 30~37mm guns).
Most common deaths I have experienced is from desperate maneuvers
with badly damaged planes causing a stall and augering, or fuel
leaking and catching fire.
And contrary to popular belief, the guns aren't undermodelled either,
judging from my experience. It just won't go down if guns are fired
like in AH. Quick snapshots never kill planes(they do kill the
pilot quite many times, however), wild shots from 200~300 meters
don't blow a plane, few 20mm pings don't instantly knock off a
wing. Only if you give it a good chase, take concentration and
shoot carefully will the plane go down.
When these sort of damage modelling is introduced in AH, I can
say with confidence the people complaining about Spits and N1K2s
would greatly diminish. The guns won't be destructive enough
with sphisticated damage modelling. 400~500 yard shots would rarely
award someone a kill. The slow plane it is, planes like Spits would
have to land a real good shot within real good range to kill
someone. And being able to take more damage than before, a faster
plane would have better chance to stay alive till the seperation
(but of course, quite badly tattered).
And no, this is not a Luft Whining thread. The 'penalty'(if it is
to be considered a penalty) applies the same to LW birds. Just that
pilots who mainly used LW birds are more familiar with getting in
close range to fire a shot, that they won't notice that much of a
difference.
Better damage modelling. The single largest request I have
for AH and HTC.
-
I would agree with the arguement that AH damage modelling is out - certainly structural failure such as we see in AH I don't believe is realistic. As previous posters have said I think we should have more fire / control linkages / fuel tanks / oil leaks instead of the loss of part wings / tail etc. Take a ping in the oil system and you really should be looking for a way out.
Where I DO believe the guns are over modelled is the damage caused by even canon on Tanks. I am doing some research on my uncle who drove Churchills in the war and really the only rounds you see killing a tank in the battle reports are those 75mm and above - my uncle was killed by an 88 coming through the Drivers glass (4in thick !!!). The reports consistantly show scoops and ricochets of the turret and armour of even 75mm rounds. So how do Hispanos and other small calibre cannon dod the damage they do ?? I would be interested in any real life evidence anyone can highlight to the contrary.
-
Il2 is very good example of the "modern" dammage modelling IMO, one of most common reasons to a plane being downed was shooting his engine, putting it on fire. Marseille always aimed for the engine and went back to the start of the cockpit or little further back then stoped. He knew it was enough, and it allways was. Improved advanced DM is my single most wanted feuture to AH aswell.
Ground veihcle modelling is a bit weird IMO, there are quite many combat reports of Shermans not being able to penetrate the Panzer 4 armor, and that wasn´t an exteremely thick armor (sherman 76mm wasn't the best gun either). How a 20mm or even normal 50 cal guns can take em out in one or two passess is beyond me (from behind, together with the speed of the plane it might).
-
In IL2 I'm able to aim accurately at the radiator of an IL2, score a pair of hits and have it smoking. In AH I'm only able to aim in the general direction of the enemy engine, fire a burst and have any random results (oil, engine stopped, radiator, pilot wounded).
Gunnery and DM are very very different between those sims.
-
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/neilpage/background.html
Here you will find some first hand experiences fighting buffs. 190s opened mg fire at 400 yards and then 20mm at 200yards from dead six attacks while the buffs opened defensive fire at 1500 yards. The interceptors were surviving massive defensive fire along a 1300 yards run.
-
Lol I'd like to see the story after the veterans faced the AH b-17..
We approached the bombers from behind, the bombers opened defensive fire at 1700 yards. By the time we closed to 1000 yards, most of the attacking fighters were lost after a couple stray hits from the bombers guns.
None were able to kill any gunners, at least it was hard to tell since they kept on shooting and nobody dared to stay lined to the bombers anywhere under 1000 yards.
After a couple swooping attacks, a couple bombers were smoking and the luftwaffe lost all of its 190's.
-
One thing I always wondered when seeing clips of guncam footage is what happens when you are shooting at a target from directly behind. Specifically, what happens when you shoot at the wings or horiz stabs from directly behind. All you see is the thin profile of the wings... bullets in this case impact at very low angles wrt the surface of the wings. In AH when I nail a target from dead six in the wings, I see hit sprites on the trailing edges of the wings. I wonder exactly how hard it is to hit the wings in the trailing edges? Were hits on the trailing edges common irl? And if bullets strike the wing surface from straight behind, do they penetrate, or does the low angle cause the bullet to deflect a tiny bit and instead of punching a hole in the wing, it makes an elongated groove or gash in the skin?
Wrt bombers, I usually don't go for wings. I split-S over the bombers and rake the fuselage from nose to tail hoping for a pilot kill or damaged top turret. However, it takes me several passes sometimes, and it seems like the folks who go for wings only need one good pass to shear off a tip or a whole wing.
mauser
-
Originally posted by LLv34_Camouflage
In real life, hitting at ranges above 200yds was more luck than skill. Atleast the pilots hardly ever shot from that far... They went much closer, "until the target fills the windscreen".
Well that depends of what kind of armament fighter carried. I'm just reading book "348th FG Kearby's Thunderbolts", book is full of great A2A combat accounts . 348th FG pilots usually started to fire at distances 250-300 yards and even at 700 yards (and still scoring kills, 700 yards was maximum effective (theoretical) range for 50cals). Tonys and zeros started to smoke or burn after relatively short bursts.
What comes to bomber killing, I've stopped to do any 2oc high or similar attacks, I just park my jug to bombers 6 and start to fire at 1000-1100 yards keeping that distance. It requires 3-4 seconds burst to tear B-17 to pieces, but it usually works and I don't get too many holes to my jug.
-
Gijoe showed me the way to kill buffs. Aim for the wings. That bastige kills buffs so quick it gives me fits.
On the lanc aim for the inboard engine. A few hits and it catches fire.. disengage, count to 11 and lanc explodes. Wish the zeke did that!
-
Lots of snippage...
Originally posted by LLv34_Camouflage
I think this mostly a matter of the hit bubble size and the laser range finder. For a concrete example of the hit bubble issue, compare AH's long range gunnery to IL2's and you'll see what I mean.
What hit bubble? That's WB you are thinking about... there is no "hit bubble" in AH... you have to actually hit the plane itself. I'm not disputing the IL2 is more difficult, I just don't agree with your reasoning behind it.
-
What Lephturn said, there ain't such a thing as a "hit bubble" in Aces High. Even AW had gotten rid of the hit bubble (at least in FR) by the time of its demise.
Tac, also realize that many of the guncam film's you see on TV, and in video's, are there because they are the most spectacular. Either (A) the plane getting shot at die's a spectacular explosive death or (B) the plane getting shot at gets chewed to pieces and is hit a thousand times. Your just seeing the most spectacular fews mins out of thousands of hours of gunfilm, so I don't think you can use it to judge if something is "right" or not.
I do agree that our damage model could use some advancement as discussed, but I think lethality is probably about right, or maybe even a little weak. For instance the Russians and German 109 pilots thought a single 20mm and x2 MG's were plenty of firepower, where as in AH its almost useless.
-
Originally posted by Lephturn
What hit bubble? That's WB you are thinking about... there is no "hit bubble" in AH... you have to actually hit the plane itself.
Based on my personal experiences, I have to disagree. I don't know what the official word is, though. I searched for posts about hit bubbles and gunnery modeling, but didn't find posts by HTC regarding the matter. Is there official info on this?
Camo
-
I can blow the wing completely off of a Lanc, a bomber renown for its durability, with 12 rounds of 50 cal ammo.
That tells me there is something wrong.
-
1st one thing about AH and IL2 gunnery modeling.
I just played the IL2 demo and was completey astonished of how much 20mm hits a YAK1 can take while on the other hand those Yak1 blew my G2 with a short burst.
Is that just a demo thing? i think no fighter would keep flying after about 15-20 20 mm hits from 80 meters.
Otherwise i found the gunnery distances etc. in IL2 way more realistic. No 500 yrds 70 degree 0.5 cal snapshort killer shots.
Now back to AH. I think AH doesnt model hit bubbles, its long over that i saw a game using that. U can test that offline with the drones, u can see that only if a part of the plane is it, there is a hitflash.
The problem i see with AH is, that iit doesnt use different models for full metal rounds and HE rounds.
A full metal rounds dmg is based mainly on kinetic energy. So weapons like the Hispano or 0.5 cal are quit strong in this way. They have high muzzle velocity and so high kinetic energy.
In AH when such a round hits, there is no question "does it hit a vital part?", it dmg value is simply substracted from the "armor" value of the location hit.
So u can use 10 0.5 cals to saw of the wing of a fighter, cause the added dmg value just overwhelms the "armor" factor of the wing. While in RL (especially when used in a snapshoot) those 10 hits would simply put 10 holes in the wing, without damaging the wing spar.
Btw this is the same reason, why an Osti will always get the kill it is together with a PZR attacking another PZR. The many many 37mm pings will just produce a greater dmg value than the few "strong" 75mm AP hits.
In the cannons on the other hand, the HE effects seem to be underrated, thats the reason why hispanos and the type 99 do consideralbe more dmg that the german MG151/20.
In RL the hispano is a killer if it hits hard parts of the tgt. But it would simply pass through soft parts (skins, control surfaces etc.)
while the high HE load of the MG151/20 will just (up to its maximum range) blow of those soft parts.
The MG131 also features a HE load (just a small but even thats more than the 0.5 cals have), and so the GE 13mm is much more effective against soft tgts than the 0.5cal.
In AH the kinetic dmg seems to be the decisive factor, and therefor the 0.5 cal and the hispanos are the incrideble killers they are now in AH.
-
Originally posted by LLv34_Camouflage
Based on my personal experiences, I have to disagree. I don't know what the official word is, though. I searched for posts about hit bubbles and gunnery modeling, but didn't find posts by HTC regarding the matter. Is there official info on this?
Camo
Well, I don't think I can dig back far enough to find where HT or Pyro talks about that, but I'm quite certain that not only is there no hit bubble, but also each round is modelled individually. The only compromise in there I'm aware of is that instead of having 2 or 3 different types of rounds mixed in the ammo feed, each round is sort of a mix between AP/HE/I ammo. Pyro I think has talked about his on the BBS as well, although I'm not going to dig around and find it, it was long ago.
I have often watched rounds fly just either side of a bit of another plane and not hit anything. Sometimes if you get strikes at longer rages, the hit sparkles can look a bit weird but I can't remember ever seeing stikes that should have missed. If you want to know for sure, simply take up a P-38 in the TA with a buddy and run a couple of tests. I'll bet you can shoot through the big gap between the 38's booms ahead of the horizontal stab and not register a hit. :) If you can do that, there is no hit bubble. Film it just in case, and you'll have your answer.
-
Erm, I think this landed in the wrong thread HT... should be in Mand's Rocket thread I think.
Thanks for the info though... :)
-
well, even after seeing the film again.. even if it is in slow motion, its still a heck of a lot of hits before them fighters go down..and mighty close.
-
After i saw the gun cam of the p47 8 .50's hitting the horse
drawn wagon, i belive that 8 .50's can devestate any aircraft
within 3 seconds, regardless of where the hits are. I think the
gun models here are very good. Fair chance for the fighter to
kill the bomber, fair chance for bomber to kill the fighter.
Btw, the chunks of meat were flying 100's of yards and all was
left was a stain on the road.
-
sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet!!
this is the first time youve realised the 50cals are overmodeled?
Honestly Tac!, Ive said this about the B17 a hundred times. Too weak and guns are too powerful.
50 cals were not as effective as in AH and id bet evry penny i have on it.
But when i say it Im a 'luftwhiner'. NOTHING annoys me more than infantile name calling when I know my interest in getting things changed is to make this game more fun.
We should be able to struggle home a lot more than we do now,running out of ammo should be a very common occourance.
fights would be more fun if we lasted longer imo.
-
Something that still bugs me.
While the '1 ping deaths' and slow planes like Spit9s being most feared
adversary by many can be explained due to damage modelling problems
....
Why is it that gunnery distances of AH are so drastically different
compared to IL-2??
The main problem of IL-2s, the already noted discussions about trim
features and plane flight characteristics explain a lot, but still, if AH and
IL-2 both model bullet projectory and ballistics according to their own
research, shouldn't AH and IL-2 show at least a bit of simularity in
gunnery?
For instance, in AH I usually fly 109s. Can't hit anything over 500 yards
, so naturally I go in close. But the definition of 'close' in AH is like 200
-300 yards, which would still be like about 200-300 meters. Hitting a
moving target in IL-2 at 200 meters range is almost impossible. In IL-2,
I usually close in at least up to 50 meters, which would be like 50 yards
in AH. If I shoot hastily, I still miss even at 50 meters. The bullet streams
feel.. how do you say.. um.. "thin", and I can see the shots 'veering off'
very close to the target plane. The shots would miss like 1-3 feet from the
target.
In AH, I don't think I've ever experienced this sort of thing. The bullet
streams in AH seem 'thick', whereas IL-2 feels like the stream is a long
needle, the shots I fire in AH feels like sort of a large pole. That's why
even though people say there are no 'hit boxes' in AH, it still feels that
way. You close in about 300 yards, get the general direction and general
lead, and fire. Poof, the bullets all hit.
What is behind this? What's the difference??
-
I still think most of it has to do with AH DM, nothing bad against HTC but it is getting old. Had it since AH first got out, wasn't even very very modern then...
-
could be worse, we could just have a health bar,lol
-
Yup, could be like FA *SHRUG*
-
Originally posted by hazed-
50 cals were not as effective as in AH and id bet evry penny i have on it.
But when i say it Im a 'luftwhiner'.
All damage models are subjective, LUFTWHINER.
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
All damage models are subjective, LUFTWHINER.
And as you have clearly demonstrated all humans are not born equal.Some, like you baby ;), are amazinhunks :D
hehe seriously though you IL2 guys are forgetting 32 people vs 400 online.Something has to give and the DM is probably the first to need 'toning down' in accuracy.
Simply reducing damage from all cannons (and the magic 50cals)by say 30% would give AH much more of the Il2 feel.Fights would last longer.I'd have no problem with that at all.
-
hehe like the 190d9 cannons and mg's are now you mean Hazed ;)
-
Originally posted by hazed-
But when i say it Im a 'luftwhiner'. NOTHING annoys me more than infantile name calling when I know my interest in getting things changed is to make this game more fun.
More fun for whom? Certainly not the guys flying .50 calibers against the cannons.
D
-
Kweassa:
The bullet stream in AH is definitely not a tube but a Cone (i.e. dispersion is modelled). You can use the target feature in offline mode to see it.
Hooligan
-
Originally posted by Doberman
More fun for whom? Certainly not the guys flying .50 calibers against the cannons.
D
doberman i mean an overall reduction in lethality of all the guns not just 50 cals.
the 303s and 7.92mm etc could stay as they are.
if you dont think it would be more fun then try what I did with Citabria in the DA. take 202's or any plane with smalll caliber Mgs and have dogfights using just thes small mgs.you will lose pieces but the fight will last longer and it REALLY becomes a battle of wits.Honestly, its a great fun.
(btw i lost almost every fight :D)
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Why is it that gunnery distances of AH are so drastically different
compared to IL-2??
The main problem of IL-2s, the already noted discussions about trim features and plane flight characteristics explain a lot, but still, if AH and IL-2 both model bullet projectory and ballistics according to their own research, shouldn't AH and IL-2 show at least a bit of simularity in gunnery?
For instance, in AH I usually fly 109s. Can't hit anything over 500 yards , so naturally I go in close. But the definition of 'close' in AH is like 200 -300 yards, which would still be like about 200-300 meters. Hitting a moving target in IL-2 at 200 meters range is almost impossible. In IL-2, I usually close in at least up to 50 meters, which would be like 50 yards in AH. If I shoot hastily, I still miss even at 50 meters. The bullet streams feel.. how do you say.. um.. "thin", and I can see the shots 'veering off' very close to the target plane. The shots would miss like 1-3 feet from the
target.
In AH, I don't think I've ever experienced this sort of thing. The bullet streams in AH seem 'thick', whereas IL-2 feels like the stream is a long needle, the shots I fire in AH feels like sort of a large pole. That's why even though people say there are no 'hit boxes' in AH, it still feels that way. You close in about 300 yards, get the general direction and general lead, and fire. Poof, the bullets all hit.
What is behind this? What's the difference??
Excellent post!
Camo
-
Gun damage modeling in AH is porked. Hit a buff with 50s and 1/4 the systems and controls fall off. Hit a b17 with 20 30mm and it flies along many times not even smoking. As far as buff guns go, the biggest problem with them is that 1/2 of them shoot right through the buffs structure. In reality the top turret could not fire dead 6 unless elevated 30+ degrees (depending on buffs model) otherwise it would shoot the vert stab. off the plane. the bottom turret was restricted also, in AH both these twin gunned turrets easily fire through the buffs body thus tripling the firepower in most cases. Correct the gun angles and you'll find it much easier to get on a buffs tail and shoot it down. One more problem is the 50s on the buffs arent modeled as 50cals more like 15mm @ 1500fps add to this the icons and the overly large renditions of the aircraft for pixilation reasons its easy to kill most fighters under 1000mtrs and out to 1.5-1.7K you can still take a wing off many trailing fighters even in the 3-9 positions.
Solution: correct the angles, projectile modeling, and maybe make the buffs tougher or with more systems to damage, like hydraulics ect. how about engines that catch fire and if not shut down soon will explode ect...
As it stands now... a b17 makes one hell of a fighter escort.
-
I agree Amraam..
What goes to AH and IL2 modelling, does IL2 have dispersion modeled at all?
Those stories sound like the bullet stream there would be an extremely thin stick, if one bullet misses all bullets miss.
-
I still wonder how 50% of dead six 50" pings kill my radiator ...
Or how a dead 50" six ping may cause any damage to the pilot in a 190D9 with 14mm and 8mm armour plating for the pilot. Or how a short 50" burst from a B17 CUT both wings of a Ta152H in a 9 o'clock diving aproach at 1000 yards.
Having 50", why to use 20mm HE bullets??
In RL, is it possible to cut a fighter's wing with 10 12mm hits?? IMO, at best, 10 small holes.
-
Actually the radiator hits can be explained with wing guns and convergence - the hits come from sides not dead six /|\ vs |||.
As what goes with buff .50 cutting wings with a sneeze of a touch, it's a gameplay concession.
If buffs were modeled realistically, they'd have no chance to survive in the main arena because they usually fly alone.
Maybe the buff max altitude should be reduced to reasonable levels (say, 22k max) and leave the guns as they are.
The rayguns really become a problem only when the buff reaches near 30k, it's extremely stupid and frustrating to try to attack one that high.
Or then let buffs climb where they do right now and make the gun effectiveness realistic.
The allied sent buffs in huge formations without airsupport in the beginning of the war because they THOUGHT they were able to defend themselves.. Well they weren't. And it cost them several crews.
Here a B17 can be sent to support the poor fighters. I'm not scared to attack 2:1 fighters anytime, but I'm not dumb enough to try to attack a lone b17 alone anymore. Only way to survive from that is to have the buff gunner suck. :rolleyes:
-
I think to gun lethality in AH is very good for gameplay,but agree if cannons were toned down a tad,it might be more fun...I love flying the P51b more than any other plane because if it's weak lethality..It's just plain old fun having to unload more than a snapshout of lead to see him go to pieces..In fact my fave scenario is getting behind a P47 and peppering him with just two guns till he finally goes down..Kinda reminds me of RB3D when I get into those battles...
IL2's damage model is undermodeled to me..Not only that,but the bobbing that your plane does when you try to shoot makes the game all but unplayable...Has nothing to do with joystick settings...That and the fact you can use trim to increase your turn rate(eg..cheat) keeps this otherwise fine sim on my shelf.
Tac..Glad you liked the movie...
-
cannons toned DOWN? Have you ever used MG151's? Go in the TA with someone, put about 10-15 50 cal in the wing of an enemy fighter (not P38, F6F or LA7) and the wing will rip off, do this with MG 151 it'll take 4+ hits or with hispano 2-4. A fighter was vrought down by about 5 20mm hits, or 1 30mm (very very lucky to survive a 30mm). Dammage modell in AH just very old IMO and with a more realistic DM the 50's might be more realistic.
-
Now, Hooligan said:
"The bullet stream in AH is definitely not a tube but a Cone (i.e. dispersion is modelled). You can use the target feature in offline mode to see it."
Now, what bothers me is IL-2 also claims that they have dispersion modelled. Two games depict a same machine gun(let's say MG131), they both probably use simular sources(rate of fire.. ballistics.. velocity etc.).. Yes, there might be some differences in how they translate the data from the sources into visual representation. But why does it differ so much?
If the same sources, or at least, different but simular sources are used in modelling the gunnery, wouldn't it be like, for example, if people can actually hit someone so easily at 300-400 meters in AH, shouldn't it be pretty easy to kill something in IL-2 at pretty simulat distances like 200-300 meters?
Sirloin pointed out
"IL2's damage model is undermodeled to me..Not only that,but the bobbing that your plane does when you try to shoot makes the game all but unplayable...Has nothing to do with joystick settings...That and the fact you can use trim to increase your turn rate(eg..cheat) keeps this otherwise fine sim on my shelf."
I agree that the super twitchy IL-2 FM makes it hard to aim something. But the bobbing or jiggling motions caused by inappropriate handling of the plane also makes it tough to aim in AH(for instance, bad rudder action, or typical 'newbie aiming'). The problem is when the trim status seems generally stable. In AH, when you attain a good stable position behind the enemy, you can just easily set your site on the enemy and pull the trigger. Not much of painstaking super-fine tuning is required. People shoot, targets hit, wing falls off. It's easy to assume someone is practically 'dead' when you have something behind you at about 300 yards level flight in AH. In IL-2, you can't just generally 'point' the site at enemy and shoot, because it will miss. You have to point the site, then have to really fine tune it at super close distances to see something is hit. Where is this difference coming from? Assuming my marksmanship doesn't drastically differ when I play AH and when I play IL-2, this difference in ability to hit is confusing.
-
What the problem is with the damage model in ANY computer simulation is that you lose the factor of random chance that occurs in real life. Why is it that a pilot like Robert Johson can have his plane shot to hell and make it back where another pilot's plane is not hit nearly as often or as much and the pilot be forced to bail or crash while in the same type of plane?
Can a half second burst from 6 50's really have taken out a B-17 in ww2? Probably, at some point, it would have, had the 17's been attacked by planes with 6 50's. Odd things happen in real life. In a sim, there is no way to accurately code in the random nature of the real world.
Il-2's gunnery is good. Tough to kill things in those planes, but is it due to superior damage modelling or the twitchy/mushy fm or the overmodelling of some planes vs. the guns of others? My guess would be that it is a combination of all those things. The same thing can be said for the DM/Gunnery in AH. Which is better? I sure as hell don't know, I have never fought World War 2 fighters in real life and definitely not in anyhting approaching a historical context.
I like the DM in AH. It makes the game fun and enjoyable. I like the DM in Il-2. It makes the game funa nd enjoyable.
Just my 2/5 of a nickel's worth
-math
-
Fighter aircraft are not as 'floaty' in AH as in IL2. Sure the plane maybe slightly unstable in roll, but in yaw....
Andy Bush commented on this .. IL2 is more difficult to aim because the platform is too unstable... unrealistaically so...
So to kill in IL2 you have to get closer... because it more difficult to aim.
SKurj
-
Oh OH OH...
Here is my solution.... EARLY WAR PLANESET!! very few cannon birds!! the snapshot loses its effectiveness!!
ahh that would be awesome +)
I loved the damage modelling (aside from bugs) in RB2. Of course the pilot kill was the best +) but being able to tear the machine apart around the pilot lol was great fun +)
SKurj
-
I know a waist gunner that was shot down twice in his b17. He is still working a part time job today. Just remember when vewing the films that only about every 4 th to 6th round is traced. He was talking about how he hated the 190's much more then the 109's. Kinda intresting and rare to find someone that will talk about their war experience.
-
Credit for following goes to http://www.combatsim.com/
The Dinah off Okinawa was low to the water and was a match for the F6F-5 Hellcat in speed.
The two 1,500 h.p. Mitsubishi fourteen cylinder radials strained to out pull the Pratt & Whitney eighteen cylinder behind pumping out its 2,200 water-methanol injected horsepower.
The pursuing Harris "Mitch" Mitchell fired too low and saw tiny splashes behind the quick moving recon plane.
Then he saw the tracers above his canopy from his squadron mates. Using this as a guide he picked up the snout of the Grumman to watch his fire stream into the Ki-46. One engine blazed and the sleek plane cartwheeled into the ocean. This, his sixth kill, was taken at "somewhere over a half mile."
-- VALENCIA'S FLYING CIRCUS --
The long running chase caused no problems for the F6F's engine and later in the same mission Mitchell scored his seventh and eighth kills downing two Ki 84 Franks.
Harris had fired at long range since the lengthy pursuit allowed only very slow closing rates with the fleet-winged Japanese Army plane. This was May 4, 1945.
Mitch was pretty monotone in his description to me, not making a big deal out of a long-range shot that most pilots could only dream of. But he had grown up hunting and firearms trajectory was not something new to him. This man had flown wing for the famed Eugene Valencia that tallied twenty-three by war's end.
Mitchell's triple was a repeat of the famous April 17th engagement where Valencia got six enemy aircraft and Mitch got three near Kyushu.
They had come across a forty plane Kamikaze force heading towards their carrier group.
"I just kept shooting 'em off Gene's butt every time one would latch on," drawled the Texan, so nonchalant was his description of the huge action.
Clinton Smith scored the second of his war total of six and James French knocked down four of his final total of eleven. The four men had scored fourteen kills between them! It was a similar experience to that of David McCampbell's and Roy Rushing's where they got fifteen kills against a Kamikaze formation except these guys did fight back.
Harris Mitchell ended his wartime string of ten victories with two KI 61 Tonys a week later.
Those of you in PC flight simulators who have wondered how realistic it is to shoot down E/A-enemy aircraft at long range need wonder no more.
-
Finaly I got my copy of "Gun Camera Footage of WW2".
What I saw there is that 20mm hits produced really big bangs and the LW pilots were firing at buffs as close as 50 - 200 yards and by dead six most of the time.
About the 50", all the footage shows hits at about 300 yards or less, and causing little or null structural damage. In the other hand, each time these 50" impacted a fuel tank, specially the external drop tanks, fire and BOOM.
There is a sequence of a P40 firing at a transport, it fired and fired and fired and hits, hits and hits, but the transport managed to land with no visual structural damage.
Most if not all the downed planes were on fire or exploding, this is very rare in AH.
And yep, while buff defensive fire seems very weak, buff engines were extremely hard to damage.
-
Excuse me, but still I can't help but wonder :confused:..
Is such instances portrayed in Milenko's tale something common?? Or, can it be said that those pilots are a worthy subject for such war time stories because people with those abilities were very rare? Because, in the story itself there is a line saying " ....not making a big deal out of a long-range shot that most pilots could only dream of...".
I certainly don't feel the long range shots as something 'rare', or something to make 'big deal of' in AH, although the overall situation of WWII pilots portrayed in the story suggests, in fact, many many pilots did consider long-range shots something to 'make big deal of'.
I think the discussions of gunnery and damage modelling currently, and the discussion on the long range shots brought up by me( :) sorry~ ) is something to do with the 'ease' of long range shots happening, rather than something that disputes the possibility itself.
For instance, I know it is possible to hit a target at 600 yards+ with MG151/20s in AH. But for me, it is a pretty hard thing to do. Very rare occurence if I say so myself, since it takes some skill in aiming. Now, it is (in my opinion) quite undebatable that .50s and Hispanos, Type99s hit long range shots with relative ease. AH Spit pilots, or P-51 pilots I've met tend to think 500~600 yards as an 'easy shot'.
What I'm questioning is shouldn't the point of distance where it is considered 'a pretty hard shot.. it takes some skill and luck' be quite shorter? For instance, I'm suggesting that with superior guns like .50s or Hispanos, 200~400 yards should be considered an 'easy shot', while the guns with more drop tendency such as MG series should consider about 150~250 yards an 'easy shot'.. anything further than that being considered a 'hard, long range shot'. 500~1000 yards should be a range that takes a lot of skill and quite a bit of luck to hit something with any sort of guns, in my opinion. <- This sort of opinion is the premise behind all my questions :)
Now, ultimately, would something like a 600 yard shot 'in real life'( :rolleyes: sorry again) be 'a long range shot, very hard to do' or 'bit of a range but pretty easy shot if the enemy is straight and level'??
Thx for reading my crappy post :)
-
In real life most planes didn't have ammo counters, they didn't have every other round with tracers, they had to save ammo because they needed extra to maybe save their lives.. The ammo was expensive during wartime.
Most of the pilots probably never even went for the long distance shots because in many cases it would have been just wasted ammo. If pilots would spray around like newbies in AH (1k up to 3k) wasting ammo like that, they'd come out with red ears from the XO's barrack :)
-
Mrsid2, that depends. In SWP P-47 pilots sprayed pretty good, lots of ammo, why to save them? Neel Kearby killed an enemy fighter from 1500 yards with several second burst. HO's were very common too. Sometimes pilot collapsed to get cover from big radial engine during the HO, so in a word, they indeed sprayed :)
-
Exception makes the rule.
-
Well finnish fighter jocks said worst point about otherwise good soviet pilots was that they opened fire at too long ranges rarely hitting at anything. And that was reason number 1 for not being succesful.
You know Hans Wind had his convergence at 50m most other pilots at 150m.
Under 50m and with good gunnery you could expect almost 100% hit percentage in certain part of aircraft.
Anyway i am under imperession that better pilots generally got closer to shoot. Most newbies were too impatient to hold their fire and warned enemy too early giving him change to escape.