Aces High Bulletin Board
Help and Support Forums => Help and Training => Topic started by: SlpShot on February 12, 2002, 03:35:36 PM
-
As a new flyer in AH, I have found the default gunsight to be of little value (probably because this is all new to me and I probably don't understand how to read this gunsight). This is, I think, a shortcoming of the HTC documentation/help.
I have seen many different gunsights listed not only on the HTC site but other valuable flyer/squad sites too. Even though these gunsights appear to contain many indicators that mean something to the experienced flyer, I am somewhat lost. What I would like to see is if the author of the gunsight could explain what they use the different markings on the sight for ... such as gun distance markers, rocket markers, POM markers, and bomb markers, and at what distance the mark indicates. I found a site that has quite a collection of gunsights, but they are used for WB and are not in the .bmp format. Again a lot of the gunsights were nice, but lacked explanations, and probably offered a lot of information to the more experienced without explanation.
If anybody has any good gunsights that they think work for the planes that they fly in AH, and could explain what the gunsight accomplishes, I would love to see them. Rather than clog this forum with any donations, you could email slpshot@snet.net them to me, and I will see if I can get them loaded to an FTP site for all AH players to use.
Thanks ...
-
Here's link for an RAF training manual that explains how to use gunsights. You'll find other useful articles on gunnery and air combat there too.
http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/air_combat/RAFgun/
Basically you use the ring and gap between the horizontal bars on the ring along with the wingspan of your target for range estimation. This is useful when your convergence matches the range at which the wingspan of your target fills the ring or gap between the bars in the ring.
The inner ends of the horizontal bars and intersections of the bars with the ring will also show you the impact points of converging guns at certain ranges in front of and behind the range convergence is set for. You can find those distances for various aircraft by patterning your guns with the .target command offline.
--)-FLS-----
Musketeers
-
In the case of 1C's IL-2, the gunsight helps a lot, since the
game uses more sophisticated gunnery modelling. You can
hit enemy planes only with exact aiming and therefore, gun
sights come in really handy.
It is a bit more leninent in Aces High so some people actually
just prefer a 'dot' as a gunsight. Just get the 'feel' going on
and you barely need a gunsight.
...but since you asked, this is the way I found out how the
gunsights are used.
The first step in exact aiming is to use the horizontal lines of
the gun sight. Place the horizontal line of the cross on the
target plane's wings. Always keep the horizontal
line in parallel with the target's wings. You use the ailerons
to do this.
Then after this parallel is set, use the vertical line. Place the
vertical line on the target plane's Vertical stabilizer/rudder
part. In this aiming part you use the rudder.
Then, decide how much lead you need in taking the shot.
Vector your aiming point to the point of lead using the gun sight.
While vectoring the aiming point(where your bullets fly to) to the
lead point, keep the vertical lines parallel with the vertical stabilizer,
and keep the horizontal lines parallel with the wings.
Take your shot.
.
the people with great gunnery somehow just figure out this by head,
and don't use the gunsights to properly aim and keep things straight.
They just instantly point to the lead point in any sort of angle and pull
trigger. Quite amazing feat ain't it :)
-
Slpshot
The reason why you have found so little info on what the sight markings mean is because so few people know anything about the subject.
Add to that the fact that few sim developers tell the buyer what the gunsight "means".
The simple fact is that the sight markings are there for specific reasons, as that RAF article points out.
A2A or A2G, the markings on the sight are designed to provide specific info to the pilot. In A2A, the markings on a fixed sight (non-LCOSS) provide range and lead angle info.
A2G, the markings provide aim off and ballistic info. I do not know of any sim that provides a fixed sight that is properly designed for any type of weapons delivery outside of short range strafe.
There are other articles at SimHQ's Air Combat Corner that deal with gunsights.
Andy
-
I use this one for ALL shots.
-
Slpshot
Maybe this will help.
Each gunsight display has a center point, sometimes called the "pipper". This center point has different meaning, depending on whether the sight is being used for forward firing projectiles (bullets and rockets) or free-falling ordnance (unguided bombs).
In the first case, the center point is meant to indicate projectile impact point. The assumption is that the aircraft is wings level and at a particular speed and altitude. For WW2 planes, that point is also the convergence point for guns mounted off the aircraft centerline.
In the second case, the center point is used as a reference that indicates when the bomb fall line intersects the ground. This concept is far more complicated than the one above. For more detail, see the A2G series at SimHQ.
Back to A2A. The attacking pilot has to solve three variables: range, target plane of motion, and lead angle. If the center point is designed to indicate bullet position at some point in front of the attacker's plane, then all other markings are intended to help the pilot solve range, plane of motion, and lead estimation.
The gunsight designer begins by establishing the scale of the display. This means he sets the dimensions of the display to represent a given range to the target. The simplest reference is the gunsight reticle. The designer intends that the diameter of the reticle is sized such that an enemy aircraft wingspan will equal the reticle diameter at that given range. Other types of display markings (lines, X's, tick marks, etc) all do exactly the same thing. The pilot simply compares target size to his display to estimate range...he knows what range he wants, so he closes on the target until it is the desired size relative to the sight markings.
Next is target plane of motion. The attacker wants to get his gun line into the target plane of motion. Gunsight designers help the pilot estimate this by adding angular lines (radii) that intersect the pipper. The idea is that the pilot lines up one of these lines with the target's flight path...by maintaining the target flight path along this line, the pilot is flying in or close to the target's plane of motion.
Lastly is the estimation of the lead angle. The reticle can be used for this purpose as well, as is explained in that RAF article. Sometimes additional reticles are included ( a circle within a circle), or other markings set at some distance from the pipper are also used. Regardless of how these look, they are used to estimate angles...the observed angle of the target from the pipper. This angle is the amount of lead needed for target motion. Of the three parameters, it is the most significant and the one most often miscalculated.
Here is a typical A2A sight. It has a center pipper for bullet impact point (corrected for convergence), a circular reticle segment used to estimate range and lead angle, and radii used to help track the target's plane of motion.
(http://webpages.charter.net/alfakilo/g2.gif)
If you read the A2G articles, you are now familiar with the term "aim off distance". The A2G sight has to allow the pilot to accurately point his flight path at that aim off distance. Then the pilot must accurately fly along the planned dive angle and airspeed while keeping his flight path on the aim off point. At some point in the dive, he will be at an altitude that is the release point. The gunsight designer has to add markings to tell the pilot when he is at that point. It is critical to note that this marking is only valid for one type of weapon, one release altitude, one dive angle, and one release airspeed.
To deliver the bomb, the pilot aims his sight at the aim off point. Sometimes the pipper is used for this...the assumption is that the pipper is on or close to the attacker's flight path. In the dive, the pilot holds the pipper on his aim off point and flys down the planned dive angle. The target will appear to move "up" the gunsight towards the center. At some point the target will be at a point below the pipper that represents the release point. The next figure shows one way to display this. Note the short "peg" at the bottom of the sight display. The pilot aims his pipper at the aim off point and then waits for the target to move up until it touches the top of the "peg". Then the weapon is released.
(http://webpages.charter.net/alfakilo/g3.gif)
Whew!! Now...all of this doesn't do much good unless the sim developer tells us how these sights are designed and what the markings actually mean. I can't help you there...I'm as clueless as everyone else on that score.
Andy
-
FLS ...
Great Link !!! Thanks alot ... Great material ... It is now part of my AH Manual. I guess you have to read it a few times and practice the exercises but I understand the concepts.
Kweassa ...
Great info ... all seems so logical, yet very hard to execute. With practice it must all fall into place. At least we can get shot down and respawn back at the base to have another go at. Real WWII guys weren't so lucky ... a much deeper appreciation of what type of pilots these guys were to fly into situations without all sorts of sophisticated avionics and targeting devices and come home alive.
elstevie ...
Thanks for the gunsight ... I guess my request for an explanation of the markings on the gunsights does not apply to this one (outside of the pipper - learned that from Andy) . I'll bet most of us wish they had the gunnery insights that you must have to effectively use this gunsight. Thanks for the first contribution.
Andy ...
Thanks for taking the time to provide some great insight. I was reading some of the stuff on SimHQ and now can recognize the POM lines. Tried them out last night and scored a couple of kills using it ... I had a better flight path to and following the target using the POM lines.
I guess with all new flyers, trying to calculate what I would call "The triangle of death" ... range, target plane of motion, and lead angle (taken from Andy's quote) ... AND trying to fly the plane ALL at the same time is a somewhat daunting task. I will probably die many a death (and boost everyone else's rankings) until I can master all these variables instinctively.
The one side of the triangle that I have the most difficulty with is LEAD ANGLE. Since focusing in on trying to improve this aspect, I have noticed that when I think I have the correct lead and squeeze off some rounds, the velocity at which the rounds leave the guns appears to acutally move the nose of the plane. If I didn't hit him good on the first burst, this throws off my lead so I have to readjust again and this is where I get into trouble. Just wish the first burst was really the only burst ... in time.
I would still like to believe that there are some gunsights out there that can help a pilot simplify the task at hand.
I noticed that akmimitz and Drex are creating "a massive training website". Maybe they would like to host a page on gunsight contributions and also copy the detailed information that has been supplied in this thread. Until then, I would still take any and all donations ... along with explanations ... of any homemade or aquired gunsights that the various AH flyers like to use.
Thanks again for any and all input on this topic.
-
Slpshot
In case you missed it, this article has specific info on solving for lead for target motion in AH.
http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/air_combat/gunsights/
Andy
-
My gunsight looks like this . :)
-
I'll probably not be well received in this because customizing gunsites is a lot of fun and people proudly display what they have created.
BUT
With the dynamics involved in air to air gunnery, a static site aid ceases to be of value in anything other than a dead six (low variable) shot.
Once deflection, and range, and relative speeds are added to the equation, the thought of lining a target up with a corresponding spot on a complex "Static' site by calculating the infinate number of variables becomes increasingly impractical.
The bad thing about many sites is that not only are they ineffective aids, but they clutter the visual cues that will allow you to make fine adjustments in aim to get on target. i.e Tracers.
The situation is exacerbated when we focus on fine tuining or finding a "Better Site" who's whole foundation is fundamentally flawed, then to focus on simplicity and truely learning good gunnery skills free of the reliance on aids that dont help us.
It is overcomplication of something that benefits from simplicity.
Tracers and a bore site working in tandem.
The bore site tells you where your plane is pointing.
Tracers give you visual reference of where your bullets are going.
If you truely believe in your site, and it's ability to "Help" you with these complex computations... Turn your tracers off, and test yourself with deflection shots (anyone can hit dead 6) Then make a simple bore site (there was one posted) and turn your tracers back on and go wreak havoc.
-
Slpshot
You might want to print out the angle off chart and the example that shows various aircraft in the correct position relative to the gunsight. They make a handy visual reference that will help you train your eye to see the angle off and estimate the proper lead.
As Andy says in the link he posted for one of his gunnery articles, the position of the tail relative to the wing or nose is a good guide to angle off. This is easy to see in the angle off chart.
Since we have range icons in AH most people don't appreciate the use of the ring for range estimation but you'll notice in the RAF manual that the ring makes it easier to place the pipper in the right spot.
Once you have set your convergence spend some time with the target utility. You'll notice that fuselage mounted guns shoot to about the same point at different ranges but wing mounted guns shoot to either side of your aimpoint when your target is closer or further away then your convergence range. If you are in-plane with your target this can let you hit both wings at once when you aren't at your convergence range but if your wings aren't lined up with your target you can shoot over one wing and under the other. Using a dot for a sight makes it harder to line up in-plane compared to a sight with horizontal bars.
Lead angle in a turn is tough because your target has to be under your nose or you'll shoot behind it. You'll get a feel for how far ahead to pull your nose for your shots to hit your target. The offline drones don't turn hard enough to practice this but you can get good practice in the training arena.
--)-FLS----
Musketeers
-
Andy ...
Thanks for another great link. I read it with great interest last night before joining the game. IT HELPED !!!
After reading "Air to Air Gunnery Revisited - Guns, Gunsights, and Convergence" and "AIR TO AIR GUNNERY As Taught To Royal Air Force Pilots In WW2", I never looked at who authored these articles, and was wondering, who is this guy that provided all this great detail ... WOOPS !!! Great stuff Andy. Nothing like getting info from the "real deal" (read your Bio). I have a couple of buddies that are just joining AH and will definitely point them to your articles.
Now that I have had a revelation ... I would like to play with that gunsight (Fig 29 - Reticle Ranging) that you created for the article. Any chance at getting my hands on it ?
Raubvogel ...
Don't know if you blew getting the attachment into your post or you were just being funny ?
Fester ...
Your observations are probably right on, but for new flyers (like me), I think we need to start off with visual aids in order to estimate POM and range. I have made a concerted effort to use the visual ranging on the sight, rather than try to read the range numbers on the Icon. I find that watching those numbers takes my eye off the real target and watching the wing positions of my target to anticipate or react to his next move. I think that eventually, as my skills at interpreting the visual cues of my target increases, I too will probably revert to a less cluttered gunsight ... then again, maybe not.
FLS ...
I did read the article, that Andy pointed out, last night before joining the game and let me tell you, it helped a great deal. My guesstimation of off-angle targets was better than ever and it resulted in quite a few wound and then move to kill scenarios, along with flat out kills with the first burst. This is something that I never really had much success at before.
As I stated above, I too like to use the ring and markings for ranging and only use the Icon ranging at the initial onset of a fight to set up my first move. I did notice last night in close high-off and medium-off angles, I actually had to point the guns off into the blue, all the while trying to anticipate the direction of the target because he was out-of-site. Wild ....
I haven't really taken a close look at the .TARGET aid, but will spend some quality time looking at it in the next few days.
--------------------------------
I don't know about anybody else, but as a new flyer, finally understanding these visuals and working with them has increased my initial hit and kill numbers significantly. Still not as good as I would like it to be, but increasing just the same.
I would like to point out, so that everybody doesn't think that I am only concentrating on the gunsight, that the gunsight is not the do-all and end-all of A2A gunnery ... I know that flying the aircraft and getting yourself into a position of strength is primary ... the gunsight then comes into play after you have established the position. I am constantly working on this too.
Thanks again for everybody's interest and input on this subject. Hopefully other "newbies" will read this thread and benefit from it.
I still want to see some custom gunsights !!!
-
I meant that my gunsight is a dot. Everything else just gets in the way. I think the most important part of gunnery is practice.
-
Here's the one I use now:
-
Raubvogel ...
LOL ... Duh !!! Maybe I should read a little more closely next time. And yes, I agree practice makes perfect, and I am doing just that.
Thanks for the contribution ...
-
After practice youll find that lead the lead shot and JABO comes easier. A few years ago Rude (Ice) got me hooked on a single pixel dot site. This gives me a clear view with no obsturctions out the front window.
Dog out........
-
for new flyers (like me), I think we need to start off with visual aids in order to estimate POM and range.
Think carefully about that.
You are still considering them as visual aids. They are cluttering the view and hindering your learning curve.
If you are having fun with the sites, then by all means continue to use them. I've made 50 or more. Maybe exhausting this avenue is part of the learning curve, who knows.
The conclusion after all that fussing around is that a bore site is far superior.
-
FESTER! *SMOOOOOOOCH*
-
Fester ...
You have a point there (cluttering the view) but hindering my learning curve, I am not so quick to agree.
Here is my gunsight ...
(http://pages.cthome.net/crzn22/AHGunsights/SlpShot.bmp)
Since adding the POM lines on my sight, I have found that my abilities to get into the same line of flight as my target has increased considerably.
Also, since I have gained an understanding of the ring and the crosses, I seem to have a better gauge of the distance to the target, all the while never taking my eye off the target.
With that said, and since I started this quest, I have gone from 3 kills/4 assists to 28 kills/13 assists in just a few days. Some of this I believe, is due to the gunsight and some of it is due (not to the gunsight) to all the reading that I have done and trying to apply the concepts while flying.
If you have 50 or more gunsights, then please send them to me slpshot@snet.net in a zip file. I would love to see them.
I tried your link in your sig and it appears to be broken.
-
It appears you are on the same line of progress I was, your site is almost an exact copy of one I made that I was particularly proud of. The only difference being that 45^ bars actually reflected the path my tracers would take out of my wing mounted guns. A lot of trial and error but I finally rested on about 15^ And I didnt use vertical or horizontal bars at all. Anyway, I digress :) With the similarities maybe "Hindering the learning curve" may not have been appropriate. Maybe exhasting all these avenues "IS" the learning curve :)
I dont keep a library of sites. I scrap the old and start new. Im now down to a boring old dot, but my gunnery is better for it and I guess that is the only purpose of a site.
Good luck!
-
Not that I want to belabor this thread any longer, but I wanted to give those who participated in this thread one more THANK YOU !!!
Since my last reply in this thread, I now have 166 Total kills and 89 assist. I can now go out on a sortie and pick up 2 to 4 kills and once got as high as 7.
The change in kills/assist IS NOT directly attributable to my gunsight, but rather to reading many articles (thanks Andy) along with practice and more practice ... and did I mention practice !!!
Along with practice, I also got shot down quite a bit, but so did other people and that's what makes it fun for me.
I quote Fester ...
"Maybe exhausting all these avenues "IS" the learning curve".
Boy, were you right !!!
During this time, I noticed that I was no longer having to use the gunsight as a range indicator. My eye was getting trained as to when I like to take my best shot and I began to dislike all the distractions in the lower part of my gunsight.
I quote WarDog ...
"After practice you'll find the lead shot and JABO comes easier. A few years ago Rude (Ice) got me hooked on a single pixel dot site. This gives me a clear view with no obstructions out the front window."
I quote Raubvogel ...
"I meant that my gunsight is a dot. Everything else just gets in the way. I think the most important part of gunnery is practice."
I quote Kweassa ...
"Just get the 'feel' going on and you barely need a gunsight. "
Boy, were you guys right !!!
This is my gunsight now ...
(http://pages.cthome.net/crzn22/AHGunsights/SlpShot10.bmp)
The horizontal lines I still use to show me the orientation of my wings and I have them aligned at the very top of the HUD. This was a hint that I got from Lephturn and Andy. This allows me to see a little more over the nose.
To any new flyers in AH ...
Do whatever it takes for YOU to become a more effective flyer/gunner. For me, I thought is was the gunsight itself, but now I think it was the quest of trying to understand how to read the gunsight that lead me down a path that everyone will eventually take in AH, but maybe my quest got me to and down the path a little faster than some. I think that is what Lester was trying to tell me !!!
Bottom line !!! Read, then PRACTICE, PRACTICE and MORE PRACTICE ... and listen to the "Aces". They have "been there, done that".
-
When you don't fly with laser ranging icons, a simple dot is not quite enough. The British ranging circle is ok, but I don't like the horizonal line version...
I personally use the P-51 K-14 style of sight with very small diamonds. Acts like British ranging circle, but doesn't block as much of the screen. two of the six diamonds are conveniently parallel to the wings... think of it as a 7 dot sight.
If only you could turn a thumbwheel to adjust the size of the circle based on the range you are looking for the way the real sights worked :(
As it is, I have used this sight so much, I know the angles and ranges I can hit at even without icons. Though icons help extend my effective range from 600 yards to 1200 yards with those laser 0.50 cals nearly all of the American planes carry.
In my opinion, the right sight can help even an experienced veteran. Though obviously the "great aces" here do just fine with simple dot sights, partly from experience, partly due to range information provided by icons.
-
Ahh all good posts and comments, but sights in real use and in this sim are different.
This early post tells you how it was used in real life...
"Basically you use the ring and gap between the horizontal bars on the ring along with the wingspan of your target for range estimation. This is useful when your convergence matches the range at which the wingspan of your target fills the ring or gap between the bars in the ring. "
Why don't most of us use that in AH? Unlike real life, in AH the range to target is given to you on the screen, so you don't need the rings or whatever to estimate the range to target.
Fester is right on...... don't clutter your flight sim sight with all sorts of aids needed in a real life situation. Keep it as clutter free as you can.
I use two sights. The simple clutter free dot posted above in this thread for fighters, and this one for ground attack. Our squad, Ripsnort's VMF 323, used to do a lot of ground attack missions. I've found this simple ground attack sight to be useful for my special ground attack planes such as the P47 or F4uD etc. Dive to AAA or ground target, slowly pull up and through the target, never use rudders to insure your line of fire is on, use center dot to strafe AAA, use next lower dot on line for rockets, use bottom dot to drop bombs. Keep your angle around 45%, and with practice you hit every time. You need to practice off line, but when you get it, you got it.
Keep your sight clutter free and simple.
Ranger Bob
-
RangerBob
I appreciate your intent to help folks out, but let's don't confuse personal opinion and informed advice.
It may be your opinion that having a gunsight with only a single dot as a display is the best way to go. As far as opinion is concerned, that's your right to have such a view.
However, when it comes to passing along recommendations for others, I think you should stay away from opinion. The simple fact is that no gunsight manufacturer has ever contemplated such a sight design. For good reason. The dot that you like is only good for one single situation...one G, wings level, target at a fixed range, and a predetermined altitude. Change any of those parameters, and that sight no longer predicts bullet impact point.
That's what an A2A sight is supposed to do...predict bullet impact point. The single dot concept relies wholly on the pilot's ability to estimate that point in the absence of any other cue. Why don't you then take that thinking one step further and eliminate the dot too. Now you can have a completely uncluttered view!
As for your A2G sight, my advice is that you refrain from advising folks on using it. A2G sight display markings is a very complex issue, and you have failed to mention any of them other than suggesting a dive angle. From a pure academic position, your advice is unsound and unscientific. Of course, that assumes the sim models weapons ballistics accurately.
So, until AH implements a CCIP "I wish you were dead" death dot, folks should read and heed FLS' words. Choose a sight that allows the estimation of range and lead for target motion. That's how it worked for real...and that's how it should work here.
When it comes to weapons delivery, there are three ways to do things. The right way, the wrong way, and the lucky way. At best, the single dot concept pilot had better stock up a good supply of rabbit's feet. And anyone that uses a "one size fits all" A2G sight must still think it really was Santa Claus that ate the cookies.
Andy
-
Andy
I've followed your advice, printed out, and read every article you've ever written. Over the years your articles have changed my flight sim flying tremendously. You are someone I have always held in high regard. I am, however, somewhat taken by surprise at your response to my post indicating that I should keep my opinions to myself.
When SlpShot posted
"If anybody has any good gunsights that they think work for the planes that they fly in AH, and could explain what the gunsight accomplishes, I would love to see them. "
I, like most of the others who posted here, sent along the two sights I like to use, and the instructions on how I use them. These were my opinions, just like the opinions of others posting here.
My opinions come from flying online flight sims since they started back in the early days of the first Red Baron, through the first Airwarrior on Genie, later Warbirds, then Airwarrior again, and now Aces High. I would estimated some 10 to 15 years at least. Over these years of sim flying I tried numerous sights, including some of those posted here.
What I found from my experience, and that length of experience should count for at least something, is that online sims give the most important piece of information that most gunsights are trying to achieve. They give you a visual reading of the range to the enemy plane. Now when I flew with the sights loaded with angles and lines to help line up on the target and estimate the range that is already given in a flight sim, I found the many lines and arcs blocked my visual clues to the target. They often blocked out the range indicator, or blocked a clear view of just what the target was doing. As a result I, like some others who have posted here, found the less cluttered gunsight was the best for me.
For ground attacks I found the gunsight I use to be the best one around, especially considering that I could close a field Vehicle Hangar almost 100% of the time in one pass back when our squad routinely made such attacks.
Naturally, I wanted to pass on my opinion, and the sights I used, just as SlpShot had requested in his original post. I'm sure SlpShot will read your article, and probably try a few of the sights that have been posted here. One, or two, of these gunsights will turnout to be just what he was looking for. I took special care to keep my post as positive as possible. When I read your reply indicating that I should keep my opinions to myself, frankly, I was a bit hurt at having received such a reply from the guy I admired so very much.
I still hold you in high regard, and look forward to reading your each and every article as soon they are released. I can only hope that you read something into my post that I did not intend to be there. I know that we, and others here, disagree on the use of certain gunsights, but I wouldn't think of implying that you must still believe that "it really was Santa Clause that ate the cookies" simply because you don't agree with me.
Ranger Bob
-
Some people want to simulate air combat and some just want to play a game. To say one personal preference is better than another is silly. AH allows you to pick either approach or even combine them. Proper use of a historical gunsight has utility in AH beyond simply estimating range but it's certainly not required to be successful in the game of AH. To say that the default gunsight has no utility in AH is incorrect but there's nothing wrong with liking a dot.
Some people prefer flight sims without cockpit art cluttering up the view. It's certainly easier when you can see everything without the aircraft getting in your way. Maybe this will be a feature in AH one day. I wonder if anybody who would object to the removal of cockpit art uses a dot gunsight? I'm not saying you can't do both, it just seems like a similar issue to me.
BTW to say that you should never use rudders dive bombing assumes that you pretrimmed the rudder to the bomb release speed. Since rudder trim changes with speed in single engine fighters the trim setting affects bombing accuracy. It's best to pretrim but there's nothing wrong with using rudder input to adjust incorrect trim.
--)-FLS----
Musketeers
-
RB
I did not say it right.
I was trying to say that we have to be careful and separate opinion from hard data. For example...
It is my opinion that the external player to target view is hands down the best view for flying BFM. I think I can back that up with real world experience and academic "proof". But...in the end, it is just an opinion,and I would try to make that clear in any view discussion.
Now, hard data is different. If I were to pass along info to the folks here on the forum in the form of "I recommend this...", I would want to make sure that info is factually based and not just something I prefer. For example, I might suggest certain rudder techniques to assist a pilot in making a takeoff. These techniques would need to be based on fact as it exists in the sim...and not just the way I personally like to do it.
Back to your gunsight discussion. I understand your point regarding the single dot sight. My concern is that the technique may be seen as "the best way to do something" rather than just a personal preference that works for one individual.
The same is true of your A2G sight. If you want to present this sight display as your personal preference, then that's perfectly fine with me. The problem may come, however, if a newbie then takes that sight and tries to "make it work". Chances are good that it won't...primarily because its design is not based on academic reality. In fact, the A2G weapons delivery programming is so imprecisely defined in this sim (or any other for that matter) that I would be extemely hesitant to recommend any A2G sight display.
Looking back, I think my response was a little harsh. Please accept my apology for being too picky. Your last post was very well written, and, had I been able to better say what I was trying to say, it would not have been needed.
Andy
-
I like a peep sight myself . Little circle is 300k , larger is 600k . I use it for all planes . IMO :)
-
Thanks Andy.
As I said in my previous post.
"I still hold you in high regard, and look forward to reading your each and every article as soon they are released. "
Your articles and information are very valuable to all of us. Keep posting.
Ranger Bob
-
Eight years ago, I was turned on to a little sight that made all the difference for me and our squad.
We now affectionately call it the DOT OF DEATH!!!!
Not withstanding the immense skill of our pilots, and the magnificance of the P-51 Mustang(Cadillac of the Skies), this little sight is responsible for the death of so so many of you.:)
Simplicity is a good thing!
-
Andy,
Never being one to keep my opinion to myself, I will now reitterate my original point :)
The dot that you like is only good for one single situation...one G, wings level, target at a fixed range, and a predetermined altitude.
Actually, the dot only gives reference to where your bullets will fly in a 1g wings level situation. That's a significant difference.
Change any of those parameters, and that sight no longer predicts bullet impact point.
Right, my point was that there is NO sight that WILL predict a bullet impact point given the incredible number of variables. THis is very basic stuff Andy, you have an extremely dynamic environment and youre trying to box the variables in with a static site.
Why don't you then take that thinking one step further and eliminate the dot too. Now you can have a completely uncluttered view!
I think you're missing the point :)
A2G sight display markings is a very complex issue, and you have failed to mention any of them other than suggesting a dive angle. From a pure academic position, your advice is unsound and unscientific
I agree with you here, but the argument you make here for an a2g site fits exactly for a2a, and a2a is substantially more complex than a2g.
Choose a sight that allows the estimation of range
Range is given so this is redundant and it comes at the cost of a cluttered view.
and lead for target motion
No fixed site can even come close to acomplishing this with the number of variables present.
Given that, there is no value of adding either of these two functions to a site, when you remove them you are left with a dot.
That's how it worked for real...and that's how it should work here.
If your thing is historical sites then by all means, knock yourself out. If want to be more accurate and master deflection shooting in Aces High then strip away the stuff that does not help you. And put your energies into recognizing those that do.
-
Fester
I agree with your last point.
This is a game, one being played by folks that don't have the benefit of academic training in weapons delivery, in a game where the fidelity of weapons ballistics is open to question, and on computer equipment that doesn't come close to portraying what it looks like in RL.
Given all of that, and considering that the whole point is to have fun, why get excited about the finer points.
As for your other comments, you are misinformed. I'd rather not take up any more space here in giving RL gunnery lectures, so if you want to know more, e-mail me at alfakilo@charter.net and I'll explain it to you.
Andy
-
I agree with your last point.
Thank you
This is a game, one being played by folks that don't have the benefit of academic training in weapons delivery, in a game where the fidelity of weapons ballistics is open to question, and on computer equipment that doesn't come close to portraying what it looks like in RL.
I agree there are certain concessions to realism that are made.
Given all of that, and considering that the whole point is to have fun, why get excited about the finer points.
It's the finer points in life that are exciting :) Seriously tho, it's a good conversation, there is very little excitment on my end, a better term is bemused curiosity :)
As for your other comments, you are misinformed.
that's a blanket statement, I made a lot of other points, so you'll have to be more specific
I'd rather not take up any more space here in giving RL gunnery lectures, so if you want to know more, e-mail me at alfakilo@charter.net and I'll explain it to you
Well that's what this forum is for, and If I am misinformed as you stated, then I assure you that others are as well and could use the lesson.
Of course, there always remains the possibility that I am right, which I am :) and Id love to civilly debate the point with you to the enrichment of the community as a whole. :)
-
Fester
Appropriate name.
I can't tell if you are being argumentative or just plain ignorant.
You mention others that come here for help. These are the folks that I enjoy communicating with. I'm not here to entertain someone's "bemused curiosity". Nor do I debate academic fact. When it comes to gunnery, I don't deal in opinions, only hard numbers. When I taught this stuff in RL, I didn't teach opinion, I taught physics.
I'll be happy to go into more detail on the mistakes in your previous post, but, first, why don't you tell me about your experience and background in the subject. That way, I can frame a response that would be both instructive to you and meaningful to the other readers...because it's for them that I come here in the first place.
Andy
-
Without the proper gunsight, every one of you is understandably having difficulty.
This one should help.
(http://home.flash.net/~collis/images/logo/default.bmp)
-
Fatty
LOL!!
Personally, I like this one better:
(http://webpages.charter.net/alfakilo/default.jpg)
Andy
-
Originally posted by Fatty
Without the proper gunsight, every one of you is understandably having difficulty.
This one should help.
(http://home.flash.net/~collis/images/logo/default.bmp)
Grrr...
It's my secret gunsight :D
Just put the piper on the face of the virtual pilot in front of you and fire (yes you would be HOing ;))
The other technique is to use the smell of your target ...
more it smell closer you are and 'voila" you have the range to target ;)
but be carefull smoking or eating stinking cheese will ruin your gunery ;)
-
Mason puts nekkid girls on his, but I hit too many hills when I use that one, so the ugly face is for me.
-
Fester
Appropriate name.
My mom felt the same way :)
I can't tell if you are being argumentative or just plain ignorant.
Actually I've stated very clearly, and not in an argumentative fashion, my stance on the subject. Though my reply to you could be seen as argumentative because I took what you said point by point.
If so you have my apology, I certaintly dont want to get anybodies tail feathers ruffled. It's not my intent, sometimes the internet and the written word can be a poor medium for communication
. I'm not here to entertain someone's "bemused curiosity". Nor do I debate academic fact. When it comes to gunnery, I don't deal in opinions, only hard numbers. When I taught this stuff in RL, I didn't teach opinion, I taught physics.
Well, to be honest Andy, you came in and said I was wrong, Im just curious on why you think so. "Bemused Curiosity" is an attempt at levity, not at being condescending.
I'll be happy to go into more detail on the mistakes in your previous post, but, first, why don't you tell me about your experience and background in the subject.
well, I'm a 22 year old virgo and I love champagne and long walks on the beach :)
Andy, my stance on this subject is well stated, it sounds like you at least have a solid understanding of the subject matter as well. I'd hate to see you take a stance of attacking my pedigree instead of the foundation of my claim. Let's keep it professional :)
For the record, I have 16+ years in a closely related field. It's my passion. I instruct and lecture on the subject... I hear there may be a book deal in the works.
I'll take a moment here to restate what my point is and then I'll await your response as to what is basically flawed about it and why.
Given the dynamics of A2A gunnery, the constantly changing variables and the extreme degree and rate to which those variables change.
"The use of a static sighting system, wherein a sight is developed with the intended use of solving a gunnery solution then lining up a portion of that site that corresponds to that solution on the target, pulling the trigger and achieving accuracy is completely impractical."
Understanding that, we can eliminate the useless or redundant information in a site aid until the only information that it is accurately telling us is where our rounds "would" impact if we were wings level at 1g.
Now that we have a siting system based only on useful aids we can devote our energies to practice and building off of experience.
To take this a step further we can illustrate how complex siting systems are actually a deterent to accuracy and the learning curve.
With a complex system where the site is displaying a lot of information;
that graphic display takes focus off of the target (BAD)
and it obscures the visual ques you receive from your tracers(BAD)
So in conclusion...
A complex site not only gives us extremely limited information of questionable value, it also hinders the very information that we need for accuracy.
I'm guessing, and if I'm off base let me know, but it sounds like you have a wealth of knowledge in the field of ballistics and the physics involved with how round finds it target taking into account the dynamics of a2a.
In my next email I can go into detail on how the human brain, through experience and reliance on consistant input can actually calculate this stuff with an extremely high degree of accuracy. And amazingly enough without an abacus site :)
I guess my point is not that these gunnery solutions are unsolvable equations, it's that they are not going to be figgured out using a fixed site in combat unless the gunnery solution is an extremely simple one i.e. dead six wings level.
Ok, there it is. As clearly as I can state it.
If I am wrong in this, please take the time to illustrate why. As a member of this community (I've been lurking here since the beta) and someone who loves airial combat I am genuinely curious to see where my theory is flawed.
Thanks
-
Andy,
No offense inteded but I agree with Fester on this subject.
I use the simplest form of gunsight that hinders my view as less as possible. I cannot find any use for the gunsight for high deflection shooting, which, maybe due to the fact of the way I fight A2A, is required very often.
I have teached gun ballistics myself (interior-, transition-, exterior- and end ballistics for Naval gunsystem operators) and know my bit about trajectories. The way trajectories are effected by shooting from a moving platform can be seen by taking a good look at the tracers relative to your target (and I don't need any gunsight for that).
The only time the gunsight comes in handly (for me anyway) is for long dead six shots where the target doesn't move out of the gunsight and for A2G shooting.
By practising deflection shots you will develop a feeling for aim based on relative closure speed and angle of attack, it just takes time.
I just don't understand how you can teach somebody to take out a target in close A2A combat using the gunsight where that fight very often results in knife edge turn fights where 2 planes only have a firing solution for a couple of split seconds with a very high angle of attack.
A couple of examples where a high angle deflection shot is required to kill a target (where that target will NOT be in your gunsight or where it will be too late to fire when he is in your gunsight)
Scissors, rolling scissors, B&Z a bomber and attacking it any other direction than dead six (very unwise to try dead six attacking a bomber in AH), high closure rate lead pursuit, front quarter attacks other than HO.
The only thing I use the gunsight (in my case a dot representing the gun convergence point) is for laying my aim to a predicted hitting point taking into account 'expected' bullet trajectory and where I use the tracers to validate that trajectory.
There are only a few people I know of that hardly ever miss a deflection shot no matter what plane they fly and Fester is one of them. Hence I do value his points on gun aiming.
-
Fester
OK, let's cut to the chase. Your point is that A2A gunnery is difficult, and gunsights should therefore be as simple as possible.
I agree.
Some of the gunsights seen here and elsewhere do tend to make the gunnery problem more difficult rather than not. Unintentionally, I'm sure. But some info is necessary on the sight if it is to be as useful as possible. What info should that be?
We go first to the three requirements of a gunnery firing solution...in range, in plane, and in lead.
A gunsight should provide a visual reference for all three, if possible. Particularly a fixed sight...LCOSS is a slightly different matter.
A fixed sight can provide these three items of info. Reticles and range tick marks can be used to estimate range. Angular scribe marks and lines can be an aid to maintaining the plane of motion of the target. And, lastly, reticles and tick marks can be used to estimate the lead angle. Of these, I consider the in range and in lead cues to be most important...I'm personally willing to omit the in plane cues, but that's just opinion.
So I end up with a sight that has to provide range and lead info. This can be done without garbaging up the display. (Of course, my opinion of "garbaging" may differ from someone else's!).
You are correct about the difficulty of using a fixed sight in A2A gunnery. When I asked about your background, I wasn't trying to "attack your pedigree" as you put it. Instead, I was asking if you have ever flown RL A2A gunnery using a fixed sight. I have. In two different types of fighters. As a USAF Fighter Weapons School instructor, I was certified to teach the subject, both in the classroom as well as in the air.
I think you over play the difficulty of using a fixed sight. Reading your words almost makes me wonder how anybody ever got shot down in WW1 and WW2! Here's a tip, since you seem to have more than a passing interest in the subject. Get the book "Fighting In The Air, about $20 from Amazon. Its a reprint of RAF instructional text and articles that shows just how well people understood the aiming problem many years ago...and how they learned to instruct newbies on how to solve that problem.
Check this info out. You can find an excerpt from the book dealing with fixed sight gunnery in an article at SimHQ's Air Combat Corner.
Then you should have a better idea of how this was done for real. If we believe that our sim's AI is a pretty good replica of RL, then there is no reason why the same techniques cannot be used here.
In RL, it wasn't Zen or "feeling the force" that got guys kills. It was adherence to tried and true aiming estimates, combined with the idea that close range solved a myriad of human errors. Some guys were very good at this...the majority were not. The problem was with the shooter, not the gunsight.
BTW, you might find this interesting as well. RL A2A gunnery is not all that much more difficult than A2G...it's a perception thing. The bandit's movement relative to the shooter in A2A gunnery is the same basic problem as wind correction in A2G weapons delivery...and the corrections are done in the same manner. The magnitude may be different, but the concept is much the same. Put that into your next lecture and see how your audience responds!
Finally, you have mentioned range cues and tracers. I'm not a big proponent of either. Range cues really do clutter up the sight picture for me...just opinion, of course. Instead, I do what has worked in the past. I use the sight to estimate range and don't rely on an AI whose accuracy may be suspect.
I'm not big on tracers either. Unless somebody wants to rely on very long bursts and attempts to "walk" his rounds on to the target, the use of tracer is less helpful. In fact, some feel that it may be less than helpful if it gives the target an idea that he's being shot at! When using short bursts, tracers really only tell you how you did...and of course, you can already see that without the tracers being there...the target didn't go boom! But, after all is said and done, it's a personal thing.
Andy
-
Apar
No offense taken.
When it comes to high line-of-sight gunnery (deflection shooting), there are two approaches.
In one, the shooter tries to match (or at least slow down) the target's movement throught his gun line...and the other is when the shooter sets up a one G prediction point and hopes that the target will fly throught that space.
The only time your "dot" is really usable is in the latter case. And only then when the future aiming point happens to coincide with the convergence range you have chosen. There are other variables as well that technically have to be met, but, for our purposes, these are not worth mentioning.
If you are going to engage in firing opportunities as in the first example, then you might as well just turn off the sight completely!!
Here's my thought on this discussion. We are in the Help and Training Forum, not the General BS Forum (!!). So let's provide some help and training to the folks that must be reading this.
If you and Fester are good at A2A gunnery, then put your techniques here instead of just opinion. Maybe include a track or two. Screenshots will do just as well. It's mighty fine to say that you blow away the bandit without using anything other than a dot...but other folks might want to learn how too. Can you help them out?
Andy
-
Fester
OK, let's cut to the chase. Your point is that A2A gunnery is difficult, and gunsights should therefore be as simple as possible.
I agree.
cool
In RL, it wasn't Zen or "feeling the force" that got guys kills. It was adherence to tried and true aiming estimates, combined with the idea that close range solved a myriad of human errors. Some guys were very good at this...the majority were not. The problem was with the shooter, not the gunsight.
You're right here, in a round about way.
It wasnt Zen because that kind of ability comes through A lot of experience. That was not a luxury that was available.
See we are talking apples and oranges here. A sighting aid I guess is like training wheels. They help in the beginning, but are of little value the more experience you get and can actually become a hinderance.
Finally, you have mentioned range cues and tracers. I'm not a big proponent of either. Range cues really do clutter up the sight picture for me...just opinion, of course. Instead, I do what has worked in the past. I use the sight to estimate range and don't rely on an AI whose accuracy may be suspect.
It may be a product of the game itself, but I dont pay much attention to range... :)
I can tell through experience if Im close enough to the target to kill him based on visual ques.
The only time I make use of the range info is when the nme is a con and I am setting up my attack. It's not difficult to tell range once he is inside 300 yards which is where I start shooting. There are only 2 range estimations I make, in range and out of range.
I'm not big on tracers either. Unless somebody wants to rely on very long bursts and attempts to "walk" his rounds on to the target, the use of tracer is less helpful. In fact, some feel that it may be less than helpful if it gives the target an idea that he's being shot at! When using short bursts, tracers really only tell you how you did...and of course, you can already see that without the tracers being there...the target didn't go boom! But, after all is said and done, it's a personal thing.
Tracers are a good feedback tool and I like to be able to see them. You are correct in that they should not be used as a crutch to walk rounds into a plane, but they give you very import visual ques
You still havent told me where I am incorrect. You've illustrated why you use what you do.
Analyzing this discussion it looks to me like an original discovery made earlier in the thread is holding true.
Playing with those sight elements that you discussed are part of the learning curve.
-
The only time your "dot" is really usable is in the latter case. And only then when the future aiming point happens to coincide with the convergence range you have chosen. There are other variables as well that technically have to be met, but, for our purposes, these are not worth mentioning.
I dont "use" the dot except as Apar said, in a long dead six shot.
The real purpose of the dot is as a reference. Ive never thought to myself, "this dot needs to be held a plane length ahead" It's a reference point. Nothing more. All the focus is on the aircraft. The site is a peripheral component.
If you and Fester are good at A2A gunnery, then put your techniques here
I believe this discussion has been about sights and how to read them which evolved into a discussion of the relative merits of components of the sight itself.
We even got to see the learning curve in progress in which Slpshot made use of the advice and instruction we were offering and progressed very quickly along the learning curve. So I think it has been helpful, and a good dialogue.
instead of just opinion.
It's all opinion Andy, even yours.
-
Well this thread has generated a healthy discussion and definitely a discussion that I have not seen on any of the other boards offered on AH.
Please don't stop, because I think that any new flyer to AH that reads this thread will definitely come away with some "food for thought" and that is what a forum is all about.
Fatty ...
That sight is awesome. It has been added to the collection ... LOL
Airspro ...
Thanks for the sight. It has been added to the collection.
RangerBob ...
Thanks for the gun/bomb sight it too has been added to the collection and thanks for all your input too.
Andy ...
I know that SimHQ is your main forum to divulge your immense knowledge on the subject, but please don't hesitate to let some of it flow here. I am sure that anybody (especially new flyers) will appreciate any and all of your input. You have the knack of taking something difficult and complex and presenting it in a way the most lay people can understand and apply to a SIM. I will never be a RL fighter, but this is a close as I can get, and am loving every minute of it.
I quote Fester ..
"I believe this discussion has been about sights and how to read them which evolved into a discussion of the relative merits of components of the sight itself"
Fester is right ... my simple question was how to read them, but what I have found out through my reading and the responses throughout this thread is, there is MUCH MORE to A2A gunnery than just reading a sight. With much reading and understanding the basic physics of flying (BFM) can you then start to apply or use the "components of the sight itself".
Some of you guys are very experienced in the SIM world and your reputations precede themselves, but I think you have forgotten when you first started flying, what steps you went thru during your "learning curve". You all didn't just jump right to the "dot" did you? If you did, then maybe you are a natural at this, but some of us (probably most of us) need to progress thru the "curve" as I have done and I would be the first to say that I am still at the beginning and have a long way to go. Please continue your input, I have read everybody's posts and try to apply some of the info that you have divulged.
I will take the liberty of trying to express what I think Andy was trying to point out (correct me if I am wrong Andy), is that the discussion was getting way beyond the scope of the novice flyer and the intended subject, and the information/opinions would tend to confuse or maybe steer the novice flyer from taking the path that I took. I believe that I have learned from this thread is that the path for the novice flyer is to read and understand first, then apply the learning to your BFM and the gunsight.
Prior to flying this past weekend, I read Andy's article on "flying to the elbow" ... great article. I tried to apply the concept but was not doing very good at executing it. So I changed my gunsight again ...
(http://pages.cthome.net/crzn22/AHGunsights/SlpShot12.bmp)
Again, I use half a sight, only because I boost myself up in the seat to get a little more view over the nose.
I put the POM lines back in which helped me line up correctly to "fly to the elbow". "Flying to the elbow" has cut down on the extreme deflection shots that I was trying to take before (and missing more than I would like). "Flying to the elbow" is not always practical and is not the "do all and end all", but it has been working for me. If was "hunting", I was over anxious to get to the target which in turn would cause the target to fly some basic stunts to cause me to overshoot (you know what happens then !!). "Flying to the elbow", I think is teaching me patience so that I can get into an advantageous position and then use the gunsight to its fullest. If I am escorting, well, you don't always have the luxury to "fly to the elbow" else whatever you are escorting will not be around for long.
Had I known what I know now, I probably should have started this thread with ...
Gunsights - How to read them and USE THEM ?
Reading them is the easy part, how to use them is the hard part and the key.
Thanks again to ALL for your input !!!
-
Fester
>>You still havent told me where I am incorrect.<<
OK. From the top.
>>The bore site tells you where your plane is pointing.<<
No, it does not. A boresight is an optical tool inserted into the chamber of a gun during the harmonization process. In this process, the armorer adjusts the gun line so that the predicted impact point coincides with the sight line at a predetermined distance. Because of gravity drop, the gun line is normally "above" the sight line. If you use the sight to indicate where the plane is "pointing", then the gun line is an incorrect reference for the velocity vector of the plane.
>>The conclusion after all that fussing around is that a bore site is far superior.<<
Really? If that is the conclusion, then why hasn't that technique been adopted for RL A2A sights. If this technique is superior, would you not think that the world's air forces would have made its use standard a long time ago?
>> The dot that you like is only good for one single situation...one G, wings level, target at a fixed range, and a predetermined altitude...Actually, the dot only gives reference to where your bullets will fly in a 1g wings level situation. That's a significant difference.<<
Your reponse is incomplete and therefore misleading. That "dot" is actually the impact point at the convergence range. What you left out was that this is also only valid for the assumed airspeed and density altitude, assumed range, and a condition where the sight line is parallel to the ground (gravity vector is perpendicular to the sight line).
In simple words, if you mean to imply that the sight is valid for any shot outside of these constraints, then you are wrong.
>>...there is NO sight that WILL predict a bullet impact point given the incredible number of variables.<<
Baloney. That's why we harmonize guns. By definition, a harmonized sight is predicting the impact point. There are not an "incredible number of variables", even by WW2 standards. The only variable not taken into consideration by the WW2 gun sight was the effect of angular velocity upon the predicted future target position. This variable was the last to be solved in the sight building process and had to wait until radar systems were built that could provide updated range and range rate data to the fire control computer fast enough and accurately enough to allow that computer to compute angular velocity and then make that correction to the sight solution.
>>a2a is substantially more complex than a2g.<<
How would you know? In reality. the two situations present similar computational problems. In an A2G situation, wind takes the place of target motion in A2A, and attacker closure takes the place of A2A target angular velocity. The other variables remain essentially the same.
>>...lead for target motion...No fixed site can even come close to acomplishing this with the number of variables present. .<<
No. That is what reticle arcs and circles do. The variables are: target speed, your speed, average muzzle velocity, and angle off. These are not difficult to measure or determine. The only thing missing, if the target is turning, is angular velocity. The technique for using reticles to estimate target lead is well described in that "Fighting In The Air" article at SimHQ.
>>It may be a product of the game itself, but I dont pay much attention to range... <<
Great! You are indeed a prodigy. But for the rest of us, inasmuch as the sight is set at a specific convergence range, we'll have to stick with solving range. Your crutch for this issue is the use of range icons, and you object to a sight whose display characteristics might inhibit your seeing these icons. That's OK, I guess. Too bad we didn't have these icons in RL.
>>Tracers are a good feedback tool<<
Here's the bottom line for your technique. You use a single dot and maneuver into a firing position that "looks about right" based upon your previous experience. Then you shoot. If you miss, your tracers will show you how much, and that info can now added to your sum experience. Then you try again.
I'm not interested in trying again or correcting for a poorly estimated aiming point. Most RL pilots that I flew with didn't want to get the bandit on the second or third attempt. They wanted to kill the bandit the first time. To do that, we needed to estimate the correct aiming point using a variety of sighting aids.
All of this reminds me of a guy I knew in RL. He was good...probably the best A2G bomber I ever saw. Good enough to win the USAF top award in the world-wide gunnery competition.
Naturally, we all wanted to know his techniques...if he could be that good, maybe we could too!
How did he do it? His words..."Well, I just think like the bomb...when I am at the right release point, I just let 'er rip!"
"Errr", we said..."when is that?" "I don't know", he said..."I just know when".
Well...I'm telling you, I went right out and tried that technique.
And I had about as much luck as the folks here will have if they try your single dot technique.
Without some intervening instruction, that is.
So...how about an article or two? Make a few track files, grab some screenshots, fire up that word processor and shine a little light unto us all.
Until then, my advice to the folks here is to study the existing academic instructional material, choose a sight design that provides them range, POM, and lead angle info...and then practice a lot. That seems to be the time tested method that the rest of us have used over the years.
Andy
-
Just curious, is the Fester in this thread the same person as Citabria who also signs his posts Fester?
--)-FLS----
Musketeers
-
I have been using one sight for almost two years. Only when I use a high zoom factor does it ever interfere with my perception of target location with in the sight picture.
Call it what you will, I don't really notice the sight anymore. The sight simply becomes congruent to my sight picture and I shoot, release or drop based on how it looks with in the sight.
I do better with this sight than I do with a death dot, especially lining up deflection shots.
-
If you and Fester are good at A2A gunnery, then put your techniques here instead of just opinion. Maybe include a track or two. Screenshots will do just as well. It's mighty fine to say that you blow away the bandit without using anything other than a dot...but other folks might want to learn how too. Can you help them out?
Andy, for high deflection shooting I can only help em out with online training, filming it by both, and reviewing the film afterwards. The film review from what I see and the point of aim and the time a fire can only be shown that way. And that is what I have been doing last couple of months where I helped out several people who wanted A2A training. We went through basic ACM where I flew target and they fired at me and where I looked back and told how far their burst missed me and to what direction. After a while most managed to correct accordingly and got the burst dead on.
Something that really struck me is (when I started flying AH in version 1.02) is that in AH many get kills firing at 400+ yds distance, where in real life pilots started shooting at 200- yds distance. I'm reading "Diaries of the LW, by Cajun Bekker". It describes some of the aerial combats of LW Aces among the history of the LW. All fired at extreme close range (50-100 yds) because of gunnery rules. Now why is that that it is possible to deviate from RL gunnery rules as used during WWII in a sim like AH and still be succesful?
Because it is a game, our lives are NOT at stake neither the lives of squadies in AH, merely score is at stake. People in AH will take chances shooting at bigger distances and at OFF angles (OFF ment in the way that in RL one would not take the shot). Now it is perfectly OK to not adapt to the game AH and stick to RL gunnery rules. But the results in AH will be accordingly. Either you adapt to the game to be succesful or not. If you don't take the snapshots and high deflection shots in AH, your opponent (if it is an experienced AH pilot) sure will and you die. I have seen it many times.
Deviating from from rules is not easily explained, where sticking to rules is. I do agree with you on that this is a help forum and all info available should be given. For me that includes oppinions as well. I'm more than happy to go to TA or DA whith anybody and show them what I mean because it is NOT easy to explain (at least for me) deflection shooting. Nevertheles it IS used by many in the MA and CT.
I have a question for you. WHat is your experience in A2A in AH and the relation between what U know about RL A2A rules applied in AH rather than A2A rules in RL alone? (again no offense intended). Please tell me whether you never try shooting in AH when U know you would not do that in RL. I know of a couple of articles from Lephturn about save distances when chased by a con taking into account net lag and avarage firing distances in AH, let me tell you that it is not even close to 200 yds. If you don't break away at a distance of 1000-800 yds with a con behind you (one that is gaining) your dead. In RL (WWII) many chases were done at far less distance and the chased pilot would still have a good chance of surviving. This indicates for me that the rules for ACM and A2A differ for AH compared to RL. And with that the rules for gunnery. Pilots in AH will try to keep the distance between them and their adversary far greater than pilots in RL (WWII)
Another thing that indicates differences between RL A2A combat and AH A2A combat (or any other flightsim) is Stall Fighting. How many RL pilots do you know of that used stall fight ACM during WWII? Only a very view used it and it stood against everything the pilots learned during their training. Nevertheless many use it to good succes in AH and other sims. Now stall fighting doesn't give many good firing solutions, mostly snapshots. But we take the snapshots or we die (asuming both fighters go for the stall fight), and AFAIK there is no way you are able to use the gunsight for those situations the angles are to big.
We all love and really appreciate your articles about ACM, gunnery, etc (I learned allot from it, pls never stop writing) but in a game like AH there's more to it than RL rules, that is all I want to say.
-
Apar,
I think if you look at Andy's article on gunnery, by way of the address he posted above, you'll notice that the illustrations are of planes in Aces High. In spite of the fact that I use the dreaded dot gunsight like the others, I must admit that Andy is providing advice aimed directly at flight sims like Aces High not just real life.
I think what he is saying is that a pilot should use the reference markers on the sights to estimate range and firing positions. What we are saying is that we already have the range, and we would rather closely watch the movement of the target to compensate for the update or lag in online flight sims. As a result we avoid the rings etc, but are used to leading are targets just like an experience bird hunter.
Andy, on the other hand, is telling us that it's a good idea to teach the method that uses indicators in the sight. After all, Andy gave us the story about the best air to ground pilot. He could hit every time, but Andy's point was that he couldn't teach that method.
I also believe the Japanese zero pilots were taught to stall fight at the beginning of WWII. Of course, the US learned to shoot them down with boom and zoom tactics.
Ranger Bob
-
Apar
Shoot...I do things all the time in the sim that I would never had done in RL!!
For obvious reasons!
In this forum...one that newbies and others come to to learn new ideas and tips...we need to remember that what might be intuitively obvious to us may not be to others. I learn all kinds of things from reading all of your posts...the sim simply does not always fly like RL, and, sometime, RL ideas are not as effective here.
I think advanced concepts should be clearly identified as techniques that are well up the food chain, so that the newer folks don't automatically assume that they can or should try it out for themselves. It works this way in RL too...the "old heads" often have techniques that work for them but that probably should not be passed on to new guys.
One example from RL. The A-10 at low speed has very powerful rudders. The pilot can command a significant amount of yaw if he uses full rudder...enough to make the airplane "swap ends".
We had this young Lt who always ran around with his hair on fire. He loved to take someone up into the vertical and then jam him with an abrupt "hammerhead" type of maneuver. It worked great...but the Lt forgot (or never heard about) the effect this could have on engine airflow disturbances. So, one day, he swaps ends on this guy...and proceeds to become the world's heaviest glider as both engines promptly flamed out! Fortunately, he got them relit before he had to punch...but he was a much chastened young aviator after that!
For us here, it is in everyone;s interest that we pass along technique that both "works" and is valid. We always should do our best to separate opinion from academic fact. If we do, then our buddies can learn well...and maybe one day kick our butts!
Andy
-
I use the TLAR aiming system in combination with the Mk. I Optical Sensor.
-
Andy- I need to clarify at the beginning of this that my intent is not to discredit you, but to offer a system that will take people to the next level. Tho I'm not familiar with your work you appear to have done a great deal for the community and that's greatly appreciated. In that vein I wouldnt want this to get personal and drive a resource like you out.
You appear to know a great deal about the subject at hand, but in following your responses here I get the impression that if it doesnt fit with what you have been taught you get to feeling a little threatened...
I am willing to try to show you and others what can be accomplished, but I really dont have time to overcome closemindedness. If you dont want to accept what I have to say, if it makes you uncomfortable that's fine. But truth be told Andy, it IS the next step in ability, and it can be taught.
As you will see if you read through this thread. It was decided that the natural progression, the "learning curve" if you will started with a sighting aid and progressed to a single dot. In that vein I have no argument. You make a point in closing that Sight aids are essential to newbies. Again I have no argument. My only point of contention has been that letting go of those aids will allow you to progress farther than hanging on to them.
Here's the bottom line for your technique. You use a single dot and maneuver into a firing position that "looks about right" based upon your previous experience. Then you shoot. If you miss, your tracers will show you how much, and that info can now added to your sum experience.
You have paid attention!
Adding to your sum experience is a perfect way to illustrate how practice affects ability. The difference here is that we have let go of excess aids or crutches and have opened ourselves up to observing the visual ques that will allow us, with practice, to sight and shoot on more of a subconscious level. The only conscious effort being the decision itself to shoot.
To accomplish this, focus only on the target, and where you want to hit the target. The dot sight, the tracers you will see, all of that will be peripheral to the the focus on the target.
Then you try again.
While you have said this to set up your argument in your next paragraph you are absolutely right.
In approaching the firing solution as I illustrated above. Repeated exposure to those visual ques will allow us to experientially build our ability.
I'm not interested in trying again or correcting for a poorly estimated aiming point.
Then you will never grow in ability past the built in limitations of your sighting aid.
You will be able to handle simple firing solutions and nothing more.
The complex solutions that you would pass on, to have to reset up on your target, will easily be made by the learned student.
You will call the shot "luck" because you cannot explain how the shot was consciously aimed and made. But it isn't luck
Most RL pilots that I flew with didn't want to get the bandit on the second or third attempt.
The benefit of practice. But all else being equal. A student using the method Im talking about, in time, will have to set up fewer times because he is able to make the first opportunity count. An opportunity that may have fallen outside of what a sight could have helped us with.
To wrap this thought up, in a pass where you were "almost" able to get a firing solution and are now working to get angles again, I am grabbing alt because the fight is over.
The ability comes from experience. We have the luxury of unlimited practice.
All of this reminds me of a guy I knew in RL. He was good...probably the best A2G bomber I ever saw. Good enough to win the USAF top award in the world-wide gunnery competition.
Naturally, we all wanted to know his techniques...if he could be that good, maybe we could too!
How did he do it? His words..."Well, I just think like the bomb...when I am at the right release point, I just let 'er rip!"
"Errr", we said..."when is that?" "I don't know", he said..."I just know when".
Well...I'm telling you, I went right out and tried that technique.
And I had about as much luck as the folks here will have if they try your single dot technique.
You acknowledge here that this gentleman's ability exceeded the abilities allowed from the teaching and use of sighting aids. Unfortunately you probably chalked him up as a phenom or maybe even an idiot savant.
Then, in going out and trying to "Be the bomb" you dismiss the technique because your initial results were poor.
There IS a learning curve to this. You are approaching the problem with an entirely different thought process. But I can assure you, with a little practice, and target focus, you will quickly surpass what you were able to do with the sight aid.
The important point here is, "You cant get there from here" Meaning, you cant get this ability while hanging onto the mindset of conciously aiming. You have to let it go. Yeah you will be very poor initially, you can use this as ammunition to support your case, or you can push through and realize what your true potential is. Your choice.
I open class in archery with a demonstration of shooting quarters out of the air with my long bow which of course has no sights.
This ability flies in the face of what modern archery has to teach us about what is required to be accurate. And in fact, the shot I am repeatedly making is considered pure luck, though I rarely miss.
The students and onlookers consider me a phenom of unsurpassable / unobtainable skill. Yet by the end of class, starting with archers who have only rudimentary archery ability, the students are performing the same feat.
It's a different approach to the same problem that will allow you virtually unlimited ability, while what you are teaching has very finite limitations.
So...how about an article or two? Make a few track files, grab some screenshots, fire up that word processor and shine a little light unto us all.
LOL, I just get a visual here, though hopefully inaccurate, of some cheezy prosecuting attorney seething with contempt bowing to the jury and confidently turning the case over to the defense :) You coulda been a drama major Andy :)
I think this thread itself has been a learning tool for those who have waded through our sparring. There has been some very good info divulged here.
If anyone is interested I can do a more in depth article on the principles of this technique and how to accomplish true ability and success.
That request will come from the community.
-
Just curious, is the Fester in this thread the same person as Citabria who also signs his posts Fester?
I am not Citabria. I originally flew as fester through the beta, and unitl about 6 months ago. I changed my handle to "rarey" my faminly name (my Real name is Joe Rarey) in honour of George "Dad" Rarey who died flying p-47's in WWII. He is a distant relation.
After I dropped the Fester handle Citabria picked it up.
I wouldnt mind having it back, but I'm certaintly no match for him in this game, he far exceeds my ability and has infact shot me down, so a duel for the handle would most likely be embarrassingly short ;)
I now fly under the handle
fescaf
Which is a combination of my handle and the squad I fly for
Fester - Cactus Air Force
Great squad, we came over from Air Warrior after it's demise, we have flown there since the dos days in the FR arena.
-
Hey folks...help out here.
Fester is going to teach us Zen gunnery...but first you have to ask him.
>>If anyone is interested I can do a more in depth article on the principles of this technique and how to accomplish true ability and success.<<
So please ask him.
Like that guy in one of the Dirty Harry movies said..."I just gots to know".
BTW...your link doesn't work.
Andy
-
Thanks for that clearing that up Fester. It's probably less confusing for readers of the board if people put their arena name somewhere on their post.
For those who haven't seen George Rarey's work here's the link.
http://www.rareybird.com/
When you are pulling lead for a close shot your target is under your nose. A pilot, I forget which one, was asked how do you know when to shoot when you can't see your target, he answered that you just get a feel for it with practice.
This sounds like much of the "dot of death" advice in this thread.
With practice you get a feel for where to put the dot, just like you get a feel for when to shoot when your target is under your nose.
As long as you have the reflector frame and the distance icons you're still getting much of the information you would from the standard gunsight.
I don't buy the argument that removing the clutter helps because you can see better. I haven't noticed my view blocked by the standard sight and the sight alpha is adjustable in any case.
I think that once you get enough experience with the gunnery in AH you can remove the dot and do well with no sight and no tracers because you know where on the reflector the dot would be if you still had it. This doesn't mean you're at a higher level. It just means you've accumulated a lot of experience. The point is to hit your target, not whether you did it the easy way or the hard way.
Telling a newbie to shoot when it looks about right isn't going to improve their gunnery any time soon. It's best to teach the fundamentals of gunnery, the perception of AOT, and the proper use of the gunsight.
--)-FLS----
Musketeers
-
Hey folks...help out here.
Fester is going to teach us Zen gunnery...but first you have to ask him.
Dont know if you're just a bad writer Andy, but you come across as someone with a very fragile ego. This is not a personal battle.
When I was younger I got a good deal of satisfaction schooling folks like you. Now it's rather boring.
The principles of this can be seen in everyday activities like throwing a ball. It's an activity who's accuracy is learned through repetition.
Havent seen a complex sight developed for hitting a receiver running down the sideline 40yds away while you're rolling out to the left. Maybe you could come up with something, something with rings, and yardage estimaters? Could be a market out there.
That's all this is Andy. So amazingly simple a fourth grader can realize the principles. Strange that you seem to be having such a difficult time with it...
-
For those who haven't seen George Rarey's work here's the link.
http://www.rareybird.com/
Thank you FLS. That's a pretty neat web site
This sounds like much of the "dot of death" advice in this thread.
With practice you get a feel for where to put the dot, just like you get a feel for when to shoot when your target is under your nose.
As long as you have the reflector frame and the distance icons you're still getting much of the information you would from the standard gunsight.
Pretty close. accept youre not "putting the dot" somewhere. If this were real, and we had depth of view, the dot would be out of focus. Your focus would be on the target, the dot would be peripheral.
It's a subtle difference but very significant.
In a long distance dead six shot I note a significant change in how I shoot because the target is relatively stationary. In this case I actually focus on the site and place it on the target.
All other situations are are strict target focus.
I don't buy the argument that removing the clutter helps because you can see better. I haven't noticed my view blocked by the standard sight and the sight alpha is adjustable in any case.
not for view blockage, because the excess information limits the view of the tracers. Not a huge factor, maybe even negligible. But if you are using the system I am discussing then your focus is on the target and not on the site anyway. so extraneous information there is not of value. Either way its a minor point.
I think that once you get enough experience with the gunnery in AH you can remove the dot and do well with no sight and no tracers because you know where on the reflector the dot would be if you still had it.
On this point I disagree. You might be able to maintain accuracy for a short period of time, but that information serves to continually reinforce what you have learned. Remove the information and you unlearn it fairly quickly. We illustrate this in archery by shooting in the dark at a small christmas light. Without the continual reinforcement of the flight of the arrow and the peripheral information you see when at full draw (the point of the arrow, the shaft etc) you're accuracy quickly fades. Though for the first few shots you may be very accurate.
This doesn't mean you're at a higher level. It just means you've accumulated a lot of experience. The point is to hit your target, not whether you did it the easy way or the hard way.
You're right here, there are no points for methodology if you cant hit your target.
And it should not be looked at as easy or hard. You will simply realize more ability letting go of a sight aid after it has taught you all it can. It's a plateua in ability so to speak. It can only take you so far. I mentioned training wheels earlier. That wasn't meant as a slight, it is actually a fairly accurate statement.
Telling a newbie to shoot when it looks about right isn't going to improve their gunnery any time soon. It's best to teach the fundamentals of gunnery, the perception of AOT, and the proper use of the gunsight.
Again, Im not sure where this got sidetracked into a discussion of the relative merits of teaching this to a new commer. Early in the discussion we agreed that the utilization of sights "Was the learning curve" I've even used and created many sites.
Fundamentals first. Cant get good without a solid foundation.
Thanks for the input FLS.
-
:eek:
On that note, I'm a dot.
-
Fester maybe you'd like to detail your methodology for our enlightenment. No offense but so far it just sounds like BS.
For example there is no depth of field issue when looking at your monitor so you can certainly put the dot in the proper relationship to the target to hit it.
--)-FLS----
Musketeers
-
FLS, it quite simply comes down to focus. Are you consciously focusing on the site, or on the target?
In shooting a rifle, the site at least shares as much attention as the target simply becaue of its relationship to it. i.e. being placed over it. one eye open, lining the site up with the target.
With a shotgun shooting skeet, the focus is on the target, both eyes open and the barrel of the gun is in the peripheral vision.
in this case you are not lining a site up on the target.
Dont know if that helps any. Its an incredibly simply method, it just requires a shift in focus.
Let me know if this has not clarified things for you. If not, be specific on what the difficulty is and I can try to address it specifically.
-
Fester
I'm familiar with firearms and archery. I was asking about gunnery in Aces High. I don't see how focusing on the target on my monitor allows me to hit it without considering the position of my sight to the target. For example if I'm 500 yards away with 30 degrees AOT and 200 ft higher what would I do with your method that's different from putting the ring and dot in the right position for the shot?
So far you've said that you don't focus on the sight except when you do focus on the sight . You mentioned a system to take people to the next level and I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd like to know what that system is.
--)-FLS----
Musketeers
-
I got a open mind . I had to use the dot sight that was the darkest as the single dot one was too light on my monitor to see it .
That said , he's got a point . I made this film tonight after trying it just twice .
Let us have some more info please fester .
am going to try and upload the film I made .
PS:
Camo if you read this < am trying out your bird , pretty much fun so far .
spro
-
So far you've said that you don't focus on the sight except when you do focus on the sight .
Cute :)
If you look back I gave the example of a long dead six shot. I used this only to illustrate a shift in focus from the system Im talking about. In so doing it was my hope to shed light on the difference between the two aiming methods, not confuse them. My apologies.
That said , he's got a point . I made this film tonight after trying it just twice .
Let us have some more info please fester
Thanks airspro
I will start putting this together. I really have little experience in HTML and posting to a website. So someone here would have to help with that stuff when we got to that point.
-
Fester I was just summarizing what I understood of your method.
I dont "use" the dot except as Apar said, in a long dead six shot.
...The real purpose of the dot is as a reference. Ive never thought to myself, "this dot needs to be held a plane length ahead" It's a reference point. Nothing more. All the focus is on the aircraft. The site is a peripheral component.
...To accomplish this, focus only on the target, and where you want to hit the target. The dot sight, the tracers you will see, all of that will be peripheral to the the focus on the target.
To me this sounds like you don't focus on the sight except when you do.
I should mention that I assume you mean your mental focus since everything is the same visual focal distance on your monitor. You had mentioned things being at different distances in RL even though this had nothing to do with my comment on positioning the sight dot in relation to the target on the monitor.
Pretty close. accept youre not "putting the dot" somewhere. If this were real, and we had depth of view, the dot would be out of focus. Your focus would be on the target, the dot would be peripheral.
You also said the following regarding use of the fixed sight:
With the dynamics involved in air to air gunnery, a static site aid ceases to be of value in anything other than a dead six (low variable) shot.
...Once deflection, and range, and relative speeds are added to the equation, the thought of lining a target up with a corresponding spot on a complex "Static' site by calculating the infinate number of variables becomes increasingly impractical.
...I guess my point is not that these gunnery solutions are unsolvable equations, it's that they are not going to be figgured out using a fixed site in combat unless the gunnery solution is an extremely simple one i.e. dead six wings level.
It seems like you simply don't know how to use the sight properly for deflection shots so you believe it's useless but perhaps I misunderstood you.
If I'm not mistaken it also seems like you believe that your experience with archery qualifies you to lecture a Fighter Weapons School instructor on the 'next level' of air to air gunnery. Also you insult him because he doesn't 'get' your points. Is that a fair summary?
If I check the gunnery stats for fescaf will I see evidence of the 'next level' of air to air gunnery that's "So amazingly simple a fourth grader can realize the principles"?
To get back to my example, if I'm 500 yards away with 30 degrees AOT and 200 ft higher what would I do with your method that's different from putting the ring and dot in the right position for the shot? Are you able to answer this question?
--)-FLS----
Musketeers
-
First off Im going to apologize to the folks watching this thread. It is not my intent for this to devolve into nipping at eachothers heals with hollow arguments. As requested I will work something up on this process for those of you are interested.
As for the hollow arguments I will address them until I get bored or too busy.
To me this sounds like you don't focus on the sight except when you do.
Again, I used this as an example to illustrate the difference between the two techniques.
In this firing solution the dot and the target occupy the same space. It's complexity is virtually zero. Wish they were all this simple to solve, then sights would be universally effective :)
I should mention that I assume you mean your mental focus since everything is the same visual focal distance on your monitor.
Yes, on a monitor every thing is in the same focal range. It does not change the process though. Unless youre a chamileon your mental focus usually benefits from having your visual focus on the same target.
It seems like you simply don't know how to use the sight properly for deflection shots so you believe it's useless but perhaps I misunderstood you.
I understand the use and benefit of the gunsite, under simple or certaintly less complex firing solutions it can be helpful. My comment about a dead six shot is an example.
My contention is that the more complex the firing solution, the less the aids on the site help us.
If I'm not mistaken it also seems like you believe that your experience with archery qualifies you to lecture a Fighter Weapons School instructor on the 'next level' of air to air gunnery.
My experience with instinctive archery, pistol and skeet/trap shooting allows me to debate on the subject yes. If you fail to see a relationship between the fields then my explaining it will not help you.
Im very impressed with the size of egos here, perhaps I should have asked permission to speak? Maybe we should make a smiley face with his hand raised and you and Andy can call on us in turn?
Also you insult him because he doesn't 'get' your points. Is that a fair summary?
Insult? wow, big AND fragile egos.
Actually I've been pretty patient with his combativness.
If I check the gunnery stats for fescaf will I see evidence of the 'next level' of air to air gunnery that's "So amazingly simple a fourth grader can realize the principles"?
You will see 8+% accuracy for last camp with a 3+K/D ratio.
Is that expert gunnery? Certaintly not. I would imagine 13% would be damn good. anything above that expert. That's just my opinion though. Real life keeps me out of the virtual cockpit.
Hope youre not going to hijack this into an ad hominem attack on the merits of what I am discussing being directly related to my personal stats. I would expect more from you.
To get back to my example, if I'm 500 yards away with 30 degrees AOT and 200 ft higher what would I do with your method that's different from putting the ring and dot in the right position for the shot?
LMFAO Do you actually think like this when faced with a firing solution? Good Lord, Im suprised you dont run out of gas before you pull the trigger :)
(note, smiley face is there for levity. Wouldnt want anyone to get offended )
Are you able to answer this question?
Gosh, I'd have to ask for more clarification.
What's my sideslip?
What's the target's angular speed?
Are venus and the moon alligned?
Focus on the target FLS. (Probably the primary difference in methodology)
Pay attention to the results.
Dont be afraid to learn.
-
Fester, way too much time on your hands!:)
-
Fester
I'm not surprised you didn't answer the question. I'm also not surprised that you see ego as the other guy's problem. I won't bother asking you again.
--)-FLS----
Musketeers
-
I'm not surprised you didn't answer the question.
My answer was the last three lines of my post FLS. Im not suprised you missed it :)
I'm also not surprised that you see ego as the other guy's problem.
Touching
Just making an observation FLS :)
Fester, way too much time on your hands!
Me thinks I should go back to lurking for another 3 years :)
-
I'm not surprised I missed it either. I thought looking at the target and noticing if you hit it was a given.
--)-FLS----
Musketeers
-
Originally posted by Fester
I will start putting this together. I really have little experience in HTML and posting to a website. So someone here would have to help with that stuff when we got to that point.
Just write it up and post it here first. I can then turn it into an article and post it on my site for you if you like.
BTW, anybody have a dot site I can try with a red dot? I can't see the green/yellow ones very well.
-
Sean
Get it at:
http://webpages.charter.net/alfakilo/lephturn.bmp
Andy
-
Thanks Andy, that's just what I was looking for! :)
I'll give this a shot and see how I do.
-
Andy I have the greatest respect for you especially on ACM and tactics but on this one having spent the last week using the "dot of death" for the first time I have to fall on Fester's / Rude's side.
I've read this thread with GREAT interest.
As an AH flyer of about 2 years now with one of the consistantly worst kill ratios going I wanted to see what the aces did.
Out of curiosity and respect for Fester's and Rude's opinions I tried the single dot.
WHAT A DIFFERENCE !!!
I must have tried all the sights out there in an attempt to get my rounds going where I want them to. However get all that stuff out of the way and suddenly the it all comes clear. What I am finding is that I learn with every burst what things should look like - I suppose I am re-learning gunnery because now an attack will be a few very short bursts to gauge the tracer paths then a longer one when it all looks right. What I am finding is that as time goes on I need fewer predictor bursts because I am building a subconsciuos picture of what a good shot looks like in the canopy frame and sight square with reference to the dot. I think where the dot works in AH against RL is we have multiple closely spaced experiences of the view to record the successful components in our brain - in RL you don't get that learning opportunity and so you have to rely on aids and training to use them. Also in RL you have a much fuller 3D visual enviroment in which to reference the sight rings.
In AH the clarity given by the clear sight frame together with the tracers and hit sprites make learning gunnery a lot simpler IMHO
Sparks
-
Yep couildn't agree more Sparks . "They" was right , get the extra stuff out of the way in this game and it's much better .
BTW , thanks Andy Bush for the red dot sight
Also thanks again Rude and Fester .
-
thanks again Rude and Fester .
Out of curiosity and respect for Fester's and Rude's opinions I tried the single dot.
WHAT A DIFFERENCE !!!
Thanks guys!
Im working on a training document, tho I think, as you've you've already seen, this is a very simple process that only gets uselessly complicated with a lot of words.
At anyrate I've got a pretty decent idea for an article on this process and it will save someone from having to read through this whole thread to get to the pertinent information.
Thanks again guys
-
Just read this thread for the first time...
I have never used a gunsight other than the stock version supplied by HTC. I actually have to think about it to picture what it looks like because all I remember is the dot. Gunnery is probably my strongest point as a sim fighter pilot. I usually end tours with a fighter mode hit % of over 10% and have even exceeded 20%, and I waste a lot of ammo stripping ack (only hits on enemy planes count as "hits" everything else is a miss). Not that stats mean all that much...
Anyway, I have to agree that air to air gunnery is instinctual and based on experience.
Basically, in a difficult deflection shot I try to give a bit too much lead, fire, and then ease off on the lead, hoping that the enemy flies through my burst.
eskimo
-
Sparks
Good work! Glad to hear that your making life miserable for all the bandits out there! :)
I think my point has been lost in all the bantering back and forth. Here it is again, just so everyone understands.
1. This is a Help and Training Forum, not necessarily an Advanced Techniques Forum.
2. A good background in ballistics and the requirements for the lead angle solution are essential to developing a "feel" for gunnery.
Teaching gunnery in RL is no different than any instruction in any subject. We use a "walk before run" approach. My concern here was that low experience folks would get the wrong idea about how to improve their gunnery. Hearing that others were using the "dot" technique, these newbies might want to jump ahead to that technique without getting a good grounding in the basics.
Because without that grounding, use of the "dot" sight is going to be a frustrating experience for the new guy. In real life, we don't put 16 year old new drivers behind the wheel of a Dodge Viper and expect them to operate it the way it was designed to be driven. If we did, it's true that they would eventually figure it out...but that's no way to have folks learn.
Having said all of that...what is the bottom line?
I use the dot sight too. That's why I was able to post one as quickly as I did. But, I don't teach it or recommend it unless I know the recipient has the training to understand how to use it.
Andy
-
A good background in ballistics and the requirements for the lead angle solution are essential to developing a "feel" for gunnery
Good points Andy
I feel exactly the same way. Establish a foundation, and use that solid foundation to grow from.
Hope to see ya up sometime. And I hope there are no hard feelings.
Joe
-
Fester,
I am looking forward to reading your article (I hope you are still working on it).
I could have used it yesterday when I had you in my sights. I missed the lead angle (got a couple of pings) and you reversed on me immediatly and only took 5 seconds to rip my wings off :D
I obvioulsy didn't know it was you until you shot me down, but it gave me a chuckle for awhile. Hurry up with that article.
-
Fester ...
Just wondering if you are still working on your article ???
-
Yes I am. Right now Im working a ton of hours out of state but that should change soon. Not far from my mind tho.
-
GREAT !!!
But .... I have noticed that you working "a ton of hours" has not impacted your ability to shoot down a whole bunch of planes ... :D
Less killing = more writing !!!