Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: DmdNexus on March 04, 2002, 12:40:09 PM
-
When I'm manning the guns in a buff I can't seem to hit doodle.
But when I'm attacking a buff they ping me from 1.2k yards out and this while, I'm weaving and rolling and jinking around.
How do they do it?
What's the lead on a shot like that?
What's the trick - I gots to know.
DmdNexus
-
You must be missing the most important piece of equipment that an ackstar needs to be truly dweebish...
-
lol Lars. I'm saving that ;)
Most of the trick to gunning on a bomber is to simply lead the target. Take into accoutn thier closure rate and firing ahead of them. For further distance arc the stream more.
Westy
-
Usually you can see them coming from a distance. This is often enough space to point your tail at them... 4 out of 5 people will come straight at your 6.... just watch them burn :)
Broesy
-
Sorry, youcan actually arc your bullets in here too? Sorry, I'm new, and I must not have read that...and I read a lot!
-
Yes. In the sense that gravity is working on the bullets (part of the ballistics) as they travel from your gun to your target. For example if you want to hit an enemy plane at 1k range on your "6" you need to fire a bit above them so the rounds leave your gun, arc up and then come down to where the bogy is you are trying to hit.
Imagine trying to hit a frisbee, or a coffe cup, on a spot of grass ten feet away away with the water from a garden hose. Now try it when the frisbee or cup is fifty feet away. You have to manipulate the direction the hose is pointed in for the stream of water to impact on the frisbee/cup. Never will the hose be pointed directly at the frisbee or cup itself - unless they were only a foot or two away from the end of the hose :)
Now have the frisbee/cup move towards you from different angles and at varying speeds. Not only do you need to make the water curve correctly to hit the target but to keep the water "on" it you need to move the hose itself faster in more than one axis to maintain water contact on the bogy.
So consider not only effects from gravity but also the closing angles and speeds when you fire.
Westy
-
Originally posted by K West
lol Lars. I'm saving that ;)
Most of the trick to gunning on a bomber is to simply lead the target. Take into accoutn thier closure rate and firing ahead of them. For further distance arc the stream more.
Westy
.. :eek: ...but never never NEVER CROSS the streams!!
:D
-
Spray in a small circular motion in front of the target's nose. The faster he's coming at you, aim further ahead.
Remember, you got turbolasers, they only have .50 cals or short range cannons at best. So spray, get the 1 or 2 pings needed to kill con, be happy.
-
Originally posted by Tac
Spray in a small circular motion in front of the target's nose. The faster he's coming at you, aim further ahead.
Remember, you got turbolasers, they only have .50 cals or short range cannons at best. So spray, get the 1 or 2 pings needed to kill con, be happy.
Thanks for the advice, although I rarely gun....define turbolasers?
-
spray and pray
-
Tac:
Once again you keep on harping on somthing that you are incorrect on, ive said it multiple times the buf guns are the same as the fighter guns, now get over it, or move on. When some one ask a simple question and you acctualy feel the need to put your own little whinie in the response you are realy damaging to aces high. You will either change this or I will change it for you.
Buff guns have dispersion. Test it with .target
Buff guns lethality is exactly the same as the guns on the fighters.
Buff guns do NOT have a convergance.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Buff guns do NOT have a convergance.
So it doesn't make any difference what range they're set to?
DmdMax <--same feeling about buff guns as Nexus points out
-
Hitech,
I think Tac overstates his case, but its not a sentiment completely unshared by others in the arena.
I don't think its off by much, but sometimes they seem a little overly lethal.
Do the buff guns have the exact same range as the fifties on fighters?
Also, in real life seldom would all the guns within angle be shooting at the target at the exact same range with the exact same precision. IMHO. Someone would be watching another plane, someone may be putting in another belt of ammo. One gunner may consistantly lead too much, another too little. I think there'd be a little more dispersion, not on each guns stream, but on the convergence of the various gun positions collectively.
Also, those fifties buck like jack-hammers. How about adding a little shake and wiggle. Those gun positions now slew smooth as silk almost like electrically controled B-29 guns.
I wouldn't say its off by an order of magnitude, but it feels like it could be tweaked a bit.
Regards,
Wab
-
Having spent most of my bomber time in Lancs I can definately attest to the fact that 1 or 2 pings do basically nothing to a fighter. To stop a fighter from killing my Lanc it has to attack from the tail and I have to drill it with a very sustained burst. Fighters almost always survive to break off and try a smarter approach that ends up killing me.
AKWabbit,
Keep in mind that the turrets on the B-17 and Lanc are electricly powered and as stabel as those on the B-29. The turet on the Ki-67 is probably the same. I don't know about the half-arc turret on the TBM.
-
>Keep in mind that the turrets on the B-17 and Lanc are electricly
>powered
Sounds reasonable. So on a B17 you're talking the belly turret. What about the tail, waist, cheek ect? But a Jack-hammer shake on any position not electrically controlled.
Actually I think it'd look cool. Ejecting brass animation would be ducky too. ;)
Regards,
Wab
-
The tail is also, if I recall correctly, electricly powered. I know it wasn't aimed by holding the guns like the waist and cheek guns.
I pretty much dismiss the waist guns because their arcs only allow them to shoot at the most difficult to hit of targets, but the cheek guns should be affected and, furthermore, only 1 cheek gun should be able to fire at once. The bombardier manned the chin turret and the navigator could fire one or the other of the cheek guns. There's nobody else down there to fire the other gun.
-
AKWabbit: Yes and no on the same range, The balistics are identical, but do to drag , the range is farther shooting back then when you shoot forward.
-
>AKWabbit: Yes and no on the same range, The balistics are
>identical, but do to drag , the range is farther shooting back
>then when you shoot forward.
Ahh gotcha. Thats fair enough. That would be the real behavior.
As long as there wasn't an addition fudge factor added in to help the buffs. I thought I had seen one time that a little extra was added to compensate for net lag so the fighters couldn't climb up from 6 and be in range but the buff still see them out of range. I would prolly argue agianst this, but it doesn't seem to be the case.
Regards,
Wab
-
Did the WWII .50's have truly static mounts? Seems to me that any completly static mount would cause failures due to the recoil of the gun. Having shot modern M2's I know for a fact that you cannot fire a sustained burst of over 1 second and expect to have any kind of accuracy at over 1k. That was with a tripod mount and sandbags. Now, in a plane I would suspect that there are rubber shock pads to keep the recoil from snapping bolts and rivets in the mount but I just don't know.
I'm glad HT set us straight regarding the lethality and range of the buffs guns but still I FEEL the gun model, or more correctly, the recoil is not modeled and if so it isn't correctly modeled.
The reason I brought this up is that I've noticed that when a bomber shoots at you there is no perceptable recoil dispersion...the tracers come at you in a nice consistant arc with no perceptible variances in the patern.
Just my observations, certanly not a slam on HTC's product, just one old grunts .02 :D
-
MrLars: That simply because only the shooter ever sees dispersion stuff.
As for dispersion paterns we have data on real dispersion paterns from each gun of a b17. If anything our paterns are slightly bigger. If you wish to see the paterns take up a b17 off line and use the .target command.
HiTech
-
The B-17 tail guns were not a "powered turret" design IIRC. They were manually aimed and fired by the tail gunner.
(http://209.165.152.119/collings/jul04_13.jpg)
Yes, that is a canvas "boot" around the two .50's.
No, that is NOT Toad leaning on the airplane.
Another view:
(http://www.arduini.net/graphics/pyo17tlg.jpg)
... and this note:
2nd Schweinfurt: Mission Overview (http://www.fridrichdesign.com/maurice/mission.html)
"In the very back of the plane was the tail gunner. He had to crawl around the tail wheel well and strut to get into his position. He sat on a large, semi-hard, canvas covered bicycle seat. Tail weaponry consisted of twin mounted [no turret] .50 caliber machine guns. Since he was so far from the waist door, a small escape hatch was located just behind him and to his left."
We Get Our Feet Wet (http://www.magweb.com/sample/ww2/wl004ger.htm)
"The tail gunner reaches his position by climbing over the tail wheel and sits underneath the huge distinctive tall rudder. This is a cramped wedge at the end of the plane. He fires his two caliber 50 machine guns from a kneeling position facing German fighters boring in with the wings and noses alive with the winking of the firing 20 millimeter cannons."
-
This doesn't look like a canvas boot to me, Toad. :)
And yes, that's Mr. and Mrs. Leviathan in the picture.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Thats the "Cheyenne" tail gun turret only on late model b17-gs.
Is this the version our buff is?
Wab
-
Originally posted by hitech
MrLars: That simply because only the shooter ever sees dispersion stuff.
Oh, that explaines what I'm not seeing :D
-
Thanks for the all the replies.
Didn't know ".target" existed! Any other not so well known "dot" commands?
Using .target I can see the dispersion with the Buff guns and I see the "stream" that guns from a fighter makes.
Now... from .target it's easy to see the buff guns make a shot gun-like pattern...
but the question is why are they so lethal?
I ask this because of the following impression - I know this is all anticdotal - and I don't have hard statistical data but here me out because based upon my own experience and some testing I've done (though probably not scientific) I can understand why other's feel that buff guns have a "laser-like" or greater damage factor than .50 on a fighter.
A friend and I did some testing the other night in H2H.
My friend flew the buff and I flew a fighter.
I trailed the buff at an angle off of about 7 to 8 o'clock. So it wasn't a true 6 approach.
When he ranged me at 1.2k he started firing. When I saw the tracers coming at me I started weaving and rolling, diving and climbing to avoid any stream landing on me.
We did 20 tests.
11 out of 20 times, on the very first ping I got pilot wounded.
Wasn't multiple pings... was the very first ping. The bomber was co-alt or below. And a few times, the planes belly was towards the bomber.
On 5 out of 20, engine, fuel, oil, or guns were damaged - again on the very first ping.
4 times I was able to close to with in about 500 to 300 yards before getting any damage or pinged, but at this range, once I did start getting pinged, major parts were falling off - the plane discentigrated.
With such a wide dispersion - sure I can see the higher chance of getting pinged.
What I don't understand is how easy it is to do major or critcal damage with such a wide dispersion.
Radiator, fuel, oil, guns - I can see that damage happening with 1 or 2 bullets.
What I don't understand is the high rate at which the golden Beebee wounds the pilot.
There's 3 to 4 feet of engine in front of the pilot, covering his chest, waist, and feet. Some planes have armor plating around the cockpit.
Shoulders and face are, in some planes, protected by armored glass in the front. The spitfire is one. Does the damage modeling take this into affect?
It makes me wonder if the damage model is set up so that any shot hitting the canopy is considered pilot wounding.
HiTech, is this so?
Isn't there a lot of space behind and to the side of the pilot that a bullet can travel through the cockpit and not hit the pilot.
Any ways that's my 2 cents.
DmdNexus
-
Originally posted by AKWabbit
Is this the version our buff is?
It certainly would appear so, Wab. Here are some screenshots I took of the tailguns on the AH B-17. Compare it to tailguns on the B-17 I'm standing next to, and I'd say it's a match.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
>It certainly would appear so, Wab.
Ahh gotcha. Guess I never got close enough to see that clearly. They always nailed me at 1.5 out. :D
Wab
-
I would think that modeling the canvas boot would require more polygons, so the 17 got a newer gunner position to help framerates. Just a thought.
-
Originally posted by MrLars
I would think that modeling the canvas boot would require more polygons, so the 17 got a newer gunner position to help framerates. Just a thought.
Possibly, but I think it's undeniable that it's not the canvas boot-style tailguns. Note that the gunner's window extends out past the stabilizer a bit, like in my photo. Conversely, the gunner's window on the B-17 with the canvas boot tailguns appears just below the stabilizer.
I'm not certain if this style of tailgun is appropriate for the particular B-17 modelled, but it's definitely the "Cheyenne" version.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
If you appear to be leading the target enough, you probably aren't elevating the guns enough to take into account bullet drop.
-
Think Tac wins Rudes "Whine of the week" with the threat of being banned? :D
-
Originally posted by AKWabbit
Hitech,
I think Tac overstates his case, but its not a sentiment completely unshared by others in the arena.
I don't think its off by much, but sometimes they seem a little overly lethal.
Do the buff guns have the exact same range as the fifties on fighters?
The guns have the same range, but the buff guns have a boost to maximum effective range to account for net lag. Least that is what Pyro said long ago shortly after he and I went round and round about the buff guns being too weak. This used to be a pretty heated debate, and IIRC changes to the buff guns were made after Pyro had gunned for me on a B-17 and an N1K took us down from a near level 6 attack.
A prime example of what that counters, JonnyB and I jumped a pair of spit14s that were on another squadmate. Spit1 takes some hits and runs for the deck and home. Couple turns with spit2, he takes some hits and starts to disengage. At 600yds on my FE I decided to give him a parting shot and climb to disengage. I hit, he starts to pull up and I lay down on the trigger and send him spiraling down to mother earth. 600yds on my FE. He told me he thought he was safe because he was seeing 950 on his FE, and he was starting to open the range, which is what prompted the decision for a parting shot and climb to disengage.
Personally I think the pendulum swung a little far to the other side when the guns were adjusted. If a decent gunner dials you in you're dead, no questions asked and no chance to get away. So now the trick is more about not getting hit at all instead of trading a few holes in your airplane for doing damage to the fluff. But one of those few holes could verra well remove your wing and/or tail surfaces. In a flight with Xaqut1 as my lead we engaged a flight of 6 B17s. All 6 17s went down and Xaqut1 and I flew away with no damage to our ponies at all. It can be done. There is a balance of sorts here, but my personal opinion is that it's leaning a little too far in favor of the fluffs.
Now, Dale, a couple of questions if I may.
Do the buff guns still have that minor twink for effective range to counter the net lag? Or has that been removed? Deffinately feels like it's still there, which I think is a good thing. Considering what I posted above about the Spit14 and net lag and all.
And, is AH coded so you hear every hit on your aircraft that is made from a buff's guns? I know in vehicles I've been to the tower pleny of times and keep hearing hits after I've respawned, and jumped to the gun on my GV to see what's shooting me only to realize the sounds were from my previous death. Same with fighters shooting me down while I'm in a fighter, plenty of times I've heard hits after landing back in the tower.
But never from the buff guns. On the occasions I'm sent back staight to the tower I never hear the additional hits, and I rarely hear the 1 single hit (always the first in these cases) that caused the pilot death. Other times I see the tracers coming at me, don't hear any hits of any kind, then suddenly 1 or 2 big crunch sounds and my aircraft has been transformed into a flaming, spinning lawn dart missing one or both wings, all tail surfaces (or even the entire empenage), and 3/4 of the damage list red. All from just those 1 or 2 big damage crunch sounds. Of course, in this instance, once my kite has been turned into a flaming piece of falling wreckage I don't hear anymore hits.
In contrast, when attacking the ack on a field I have had times where I've survived 2-3 of those big crunch sounds w/ no damage at all. Same against fighters, hear the sound, get a little bit of space and hit ctrl-D to see what's bent and adjust my tactics accordingly, but nothing is red on the list.
Something in the buff guns needs to be looked at. But there's probably so many aspects/variables that I don't know about that I couldna tell ya what it is.
BTW, I've still got a film of me in a B-17 taking down another B-17 at a range of 1.4k. This was, I believe, in ver 1.03, just a few days before ver 1.04 came out. If the guns haven't been changed since then maybe it could help?
-
Well, if you take great care to attack the buff the correct way, with the correct aircraft(I'd suggest keeping the Zero in the hangar while experimenting), even the best gunner will only land a few hits on your aircraft. Multiple passes, don't try to down it the first pass. Aim for wings. Even if you cranked it up (Buff gun lethality) it still would not prevent some of the Ace Buff Hunters that exist in todays game.
That's my opinion on this whole buff affair.
-
HT is spot on.
I fly Buffs predominantly. I've seen many a fighter jock complain about bomber lethality because they are upset that the big easy lumbering target shot down their pretty little sports car without even having to get on their 6.
The problem is almost always tactics, as is currently being discussed in another thread. Real LW pilots who wanted to live did not make their initial attacks via a slow climbing attack from the rear that allowed both the Ball and Tail Turrets to pick them off at leisure - 4 out of 5 AH pilots do. They just don't seem to have the patience, and the knowledge that they can up another plane zippity quick makes them try the quick suicidal attack rather than climbing and stalking.
The good pilots make deflection runs from the sides or quick headons. I've seen one P38 master do a beautiful maneuver where he dove from behind and out of range climbed up near vertical underneath and then snapped rolled in front and sprayed my Buff from ahead and slightly under. I never had a chance. Others will actually use that radio thingee to coordinate attacks with wingies from 2 different angels. Which - due to our 1 gunner rule - are usually lethal.
The problem isn't the planes or the guns, its the pilots. I can't tell you how many pilots (for instance) completely ignore the fact that the Lanc is defenseless from below, or that the B26 has a blind spot when attacked from below and ahead of the wings and still attack both planes from their strongest point - dead 6.
Regarding the original question.
1) Watch the attacking aircraft closely to determine his angle of attack while he is still far out. Hit "Z" to zoom your view, and the [ and ] keys to adjust it and look for the direction his spinner is pointing in.
[TIP - DO NOT FIRE in full ZOOM mode. Its too large a view, use about 1/3 zoom.]
2) Begin firing into his flight path (not directly at him) when he is at about 1.7. As soon as you begin to see bullet strikes, continue to move your fire with him in the flight path. Unless he is REAL close, your cross hair will never be right on his plane.
3) AIM AT HIS WINGS! These fall off the most easily and once you see those go, for him ze war is over! Whatever you do, concentrate your fire on the same spot on his Airframe until it fails, don't spread your fire out.
4) If they are at max range passing underneath, fire short bursts ahead of him, don't blaze away when there is so little chance of hitting. If you are at alt, your Ball gun is the most important position on the Aircraft, use its ammo sparingly.
- Seeagoon
-
The trick is that there is absolutely NO vibrations when firing buff guns. Electric turrets may be stable, but surely, they can't be THAT stable.
NO vibes, no shakes, click in ZOOM and fire with pin-point gunnery with all other .50s converging toward your shot.
-
cant believe I'm contributing to this (buff guns are fine), but
do ya reckon fiters vibrated when they shot their guns??
:rolleyes:
-
You suggesting they didn't??
;)
-
I don't think the "Cheyenne" modification was truly a "powered" turret in the way that the ball or upper fuselage is.
Found this out on the 'net at a B-17 site; the Cheyenne's appeared in the summer of 1944.:
"The so-called "Cheyenne" tail gun mounting modifications were incorporated in the B-17G-80-BO, -45-DL, -35-VE and subsequent batches. These tail gun mountings also had a reflector gunsight instead of the previous ring and bead. With this installation, these B-17Gs were five inches shorter than the earlier versions."
...and this:
"A new tail gun position was designed, with power-boosted guns featuring a greater range of traverse; a better reflector gunsight replacing the previous ring-and-bead sight; and a larger space for the gunner, with bigger windows, that offered improved visibility and extended back from the vertical tailplane.
This new gun position was called the "Cheyenne Tail", since it was designed by the United Air Lines field modification center at Cheyenne, Wyoming. It was retrofitted to many earlier B-17s at field modification centers."
So maybe "power boosted" like power steering in a car? Hydraulic assist but not necessarily hydraulic control?
Here's a picture looking aft into the tailgunner's position. This appears to be the early "non-Cheyenne" version. Doesn't look like much room for powered anything in this one.
(http://www.381st.org/images/b-17_interior-tail.jpg)
-
You suggesting they didn't??
No, simply pointing out that (vibration in fiter guns) isn't modeled either.
You'd make a good tax attorney, though. :)
-
They're modelled.
Try firing the VickerS 40mms on the Hurri-IID..
-
I checked 391874 (assume this is supposed to be 43-91874) against Joe Baugher's serial number lists and I don't think that was a valid serial number for a B-17G. So I can't confirm if the Cheyenne turret is appropriate on the aircraft in question, which is marked as VE-E of the 381st BG, 532nd BS. The 381st BGMA aircraft roster (http://www.381st.org/aircraft-roster_names.html) has several VE-E's but none with serial 43-91874.
-
Sorry about that, 1st period intermission was really boring tonight. :)
-
What a perfect thread. I just spent the weekend with my parents playing golf and getting all kinds of new sories from my father.
His crew was doing gunnery practice over Muroc at somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000 feet (he didn't remember) and the conditions were just PERFECT to cause the bullets to form contrails. He was in the Martin upper because the Emmerson nose (his normal mount) didn't have enough slew. They were supposed to be shooting at a target towed by another plane.
Just for fun he tracked his rounds and cut the cable holding the target.
I'd say if someone could intentionally cut a tow cable with the Martin upper then there's reasonably good chances they can snipe fighters. Remember the tracers in this simulation are accurate.
Bomber guns are harmonized at 1000 yards.
The one thing that isn't modeled I'd like to see is the high speed setting on the powered turrets.
-
...oh, and by the way, lead for fighters behind the 3-9 line is counter-intuitive :)
-
yah it would be nice if the gunner positions turned alot faster.....also it would be handy if they would stay in the same spot once u leave them instead of goin back to the strait backwards pos thats sayin no one is in the turrent.......
-
Sounds like you may need to go back to school .
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/MATINEE.html
-
"This used to be a pretty heated debate, and IIRC changes to the buff guns were made after Pyro had gunned for me on a B-17 and an N1K took us down from a near level 6 attack. "
What the hell is wrong with that?
So lemme see here....
The buff guns are the same as fighter guns except they are "adjusted" so that a fighter is likely unable to kill buffs from a "near level 6 attack". Holy toejam, no wonder this needed to be changed as we all know NO bomber in WW2 was ever shot down like this in a rear attack, not a single one, ever. All had to be attacked by climbing 5,000 feet above them and making high deflection vertical passes like we must in AH to have any chance of survival.....
Right? Toad are you saying Pyro adjusted the games buff gun model because he was no good playing the game that day?
That must be nice, being able to do that. :)
-
How many times does HT have to state that 50 cals on buffs are exactly the same as 50 cals on fighters ? Do you guys think he's lying or something ?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
"This used to be a pretty heated debate, and IIRC changes to the buff guns were made after Pyro had gunned for me on a B-17 and an N1K took us down from a near level 6 attack. "
What the hell is wrong with that?
So lemme see here....
The buff guns are the same as fighter guns except they are "adjusted" so that a fighter is likely unable to kill buffs from a "near level 6 attack". Holy toejam, no wonder this needed to be changed as we all know NO bomber in WW2 was ever shot down like this in a rear attack, not a single one, ever. All had to be attacked by climbing 5,000 feet above them and making high deflection vertical passes like we must in AH to have any chance of survival.....
Right? Toad are you saying Pyro adjusted the games buff gun model because he was no good playing the game that day?
That must be nice, being able to do that. :)
You have obviously missed the point.
The MAXIMUM RANGE of the guns is roughly the same (the buff mounted guns are the heavy, longer (42"?) barrel M2 right? As opposed to the light barrels (36"?) on the fighters. The guns were given a small boost to maximum EFFECTIVE range to counter net lag. Meaning that the projectiles hold thier energy a second or two longer than projectiles fired from fighters. Least that's the way I understood it way back when, when it was splained to us all.
Grun go back to my post and red the bit about the engagement agaist the Spit14s (that you obviously missed).
Here's the situation Grun:
You're flyin a B-17.
A bandit approaches you from the rear, in a dead 6 attack
You see him at a range of 1.1k on your FE
He starts firing from that 1.1k on your FE and blows yer buff all to hell, leaving you scratching your head and wondering if he was cheating.
The fighter saw the range as 700yds on his FE.
Whenever something is behind you always subtract 200-400yds from the range being shown as a guesstimate to what the other guy sees on his FE. The closer he is to you the less you subtract. This difference is net lag.
Without some means of compensation for net lag fighters can park off the 6 of bombers and plink them all day long and enjoy being invulnerable the buff's guns. Most fighter jocks would really enjoy the buff guns going back to how they were in the beta and first tour or two. Back then the guns were about as useful as tits on a boar, unless you were a super crack shot.
There MUST BE some compensation for the net lag component involved here. The trick is balance. The buff guns can hit and kill out to 1.4k. I've done it. I've also attacked a formation (and a verra nice one too) of B-17s with my wing man, killing all 6 and we both flew away unharmed. There is balance here.
But sometimes it seems (this from me being the buff and shooting hapless idjits from the sky) that the .50s on the B-17 are throwing 20mm API shells. This is the power increase I think needs another look. And I acknowledge the possibility that I was blessed with an inordinate number of Golden BBs in the incidents that brought this train of thought to mind.
My personal opinion, and there's nothing to back this up except my experiences in AH, is that this fine tuning did adjust the power of the guns up higher than intended, and it hasn't been looked at since because 1) Dale and Doug think I'm nuts, 2) They decided that even though it was more adjustment than originally planned it worked with the playability balance they're striving to achieve, or 3) There are more important things ranking higher on the development list. Each is a good reason on its own, and I think it's a combination of all 3 :D
Of course it's possible that they meant to set them right where they're set.
While I've just about become a card carrying member of the anti-fluff movement, the do need to be given a fair shake when it comes to shooting. So let's address the issue of the fluffs standing in a 60degree bank and maintaining perfect stability w for the guns....
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Right? Toad are you saying Pyro adjusted the games buff gun model because he was no good playing the game that day?
That must be nice, being able to do that. :)
No, Grun, I am not saying that.
I believe CavemanJ is the one saying something like that but not that exactly.
I suspect that your LW issue studded leather thong has ridden up and chafed you severely causing much pain. Thus you seem to be unable to remember who said what in the thread.
Try some vaseline, or perhaps Balmex on the chafed areas... oh, and try taking the thong off sometimes.. no matter how "dead sexy" you think it makes you look.
:D
-
Just change the B-17 turrets to work like all other buffs in the game --> guns can't fire through fuselage and the leathality problem is solved. I think the b17 model is simply so old that it has some design flaws that were never looked into.. Like how far gunners could actually track their guns and shoot accurately from their positions. Also the top turret shouldnt be able to shoot directly behind without chopping off the vertical stab.
Sometimes when I attack a b17 from below it seems that even the front turret is shooting at me - below and behind the position.
Another thing is that there have been multiple cases that I've attacked a B17 in a p51 or p47, completely lighting up the whole tail section and center fuselage with .50 ammo..
After that you should think there are no alive gunners left in the whole tail section. Still they keep on shooting.. Why?
-
No Caveman, only gv's have the heavy barrel group . Buff guns have the same barrel as the fighter 50 cals, and thats why buff 50 cal guns have the same range as fighter 50 cal guns .
See here .http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51057&highlight=buff+guns
And here .
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5664&perpage=50&pagenumber=1
And here .
http://internet.cybermesa.com/~jbm/ballistics/traj/traj.html
-
For those who don't feel like reading through those links, here it is in a nutshell thanks to eskimo2
originally illuminated by eskimo2
"The B-17 tail gun round:
Leaves the tail gun at 2478 fps (airspeed). 2845 fps (50 cal. muzzle velocity) - 367 fps (aircraft speed) = 2478 fps (true airspeed of the 50 cal. round)
The round travels 840 yards (before colliding with the P-51) in 1.284 sec and has a final velocity of 1558 fps.
1558 fps (the speed of the round just before impact) + 367 fps (the speed of the P-51) = 1925 fps (the true impact speed of the round). A 708 gr. round traveling at 1925 fps has 5800 foot pounds of energy.
The Mustang round:
Leaves the Mustang's gun at 3112 fps (airspeed). 2845 fps (50 cal. muzzle velocity) + 367 fps (aircraft speed) = 3212 fps (true airspeed of the 50 cal. round)
The round travels 1180 yards (before colliding with the B-17) in 1.497 sec and has a final velocity of 1750 fps.
1750 fps (the speed of the round just before impact) - 367 fps (the speed of the B-17) = 1383 fps (the true impact speed of the round). A 708 gr. round traveling at 1383 fps has 3010 foot pounds of energy.
So there you have it.
In the B-17 / P-51 chase example, the rounds hitting the B-17 have 3010 ft.# of E. and the rounds hitting the P-51 have 5800 ft.# of E.
By the way, a 50 cal. round fired from a fixed point (like a parked M-16) has 5800 ft# of E. at 760 yards. It drops down to 3010 ft.# of E. at 1320 yards.
That's why bombers' guns seem so powerful at longer ranges."
-
CC Toad sorry about the mix up.
However please keep your perverted sexual fantasies about leather out of this thread Toad. This is, after all, a family forum.... :D
Yes Caveman that's the effect I hate about AH buffs as well.
Think of it this way exactly how mant HO do you loose to a C202? In several angles even the B17 can only put up TWO 50cal guns on you yet is still able to kill easily at great ranges completely ripping up a fighter, both wings tails engines everything with two guns.
This is a real issue no matter how much HTC dances around it.
IIRC the bombers used standard fighter "short" 50 cals.
-
What is the issue that you percieve them to be dancing around ? Buff guns have NOT been given a "boost" in leathality .
Rearward firing guns have a better damage/range ratio because of the laws of physics, not a gameplay concession .
BTW. I've been killed, well my engine was, by HO's from a 202, I have yet to be killed from a HO by a B17 .