Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: streakeagle on March 16, 2002, 12:49:41 PM
-
A lot of people seem interested in better damage modeling. A few people are chasing gripes about specific aircraft flight models and graphics, but I think there are a couple of features in other games that would probably be fairly easy to implement and make the game both more realistic and more challenging.
Xtreme Air Racing has done a nice job with air turbulence. It would be cool if getting too close to another aircraft in AH would risk encountering turbulence. Having some turbulence throughout the arena due to weather patterns would be cool as well. I have enough stick time with Cessnas and Pipers to know smooth flying is not always the norm. Maybe the appropriate updrafts/downdrafts for weatherfronts marked by clouds passing by?
Falcon 4.0 does a good job of modeling what happens when you fire guns on a target at point blank ranges: collisions with chunks of airplane.
Between turbulence and collision damage, there very much is a practical limit to how close you can be while firing. It would be cool to see these problems addressed in AH.
-
Tottaly Agree.... much needed improvment in the Damage department.
Shooting planes down in aces high is very very easy.
Not to bring it up.. but IL2, seems to have what interaction between aircraft skin, ie structure and the results as to that skin/structure being damaged/hit by weapon caliber should be.
In aces high, 1000 yard + shots are easy sure fired kills.
Either the weapons are too effective, the planes have some sort of hit bubble with on/off damage, or the plane damage is made in such a way that after X amount of hits = wing chopped in half.
Turbulence would be nice as well, and yes il2 has that also when flying through clouds.
I hate to sound like an il2 cheerleader, but i think that these are valid points as to show where aces could definatly improve upon.
-
It really depends on a matter of realism vs. game. I definatly would like to see better DM, perhaps something to the effect of CFS2, where hits render control surfaces less effective, up to the point where they're shot off. I'd also like to get rid of the "hit sprites" and replace them with things like puffs of smoke, sparks, and little pieces of the airplane falling off. Does anyone thing a DM like CFS2 is a good thing?
Then, perhaps some less important graphical things. I'd like to see a tailhook added eventually. :D Perhaps better A/C textures, even reflections and glint from the sun. Proper guages according to nationality in the cockpit (or make it a selectible feature). Rolling wheels aren't neccessary, but would be neat. I'd also like to see a selectable feature to see spent shell casings and reflections in the cockpit. Actually, I'd like to see the canopies either shaded a bit of added reflections so it looks like you're actually sitting in one.
But again...that's just me... :D:D:D
-
ooooohhhh... spent shell casings always look cool, especially in Jane's WWII fighters.
Besides looking good, cockpit reflections would make pan and scan view easier to use in bubble canopy fighters instead of just seeing lots of clear blue sky with no reference to which direction you are looking compared to your airplane.
I am not sure why AH gunnery is so deadly accurate at ranges of 1,000+ yards. I have seen the argument that we get way more practice than real pilots ever did, but even the best and most practiced real pilots could never consistently get hits (much less kills) at those ranges. Something is still being modeled wrong. However, arbitrarily changing the ballistics model until if "feels right" is the wrong approach. Figuring out what has not been accounted for in the otherwise technically correct AH model is a much better approach.
-
Although I agree with some of what you said above, I can't recall hitting anything at 1000 yards in the more recent AH versions. Try typing .target 1000 offline and see if the bullets even go that far. (I did this the other day when 1.09 first came out, and 950 yds seemed the limit on the spit1.) Only rear bomber guns have the ability to get reliable hits at that range in AH.
-
what he said-
Originally posted by bloom25
Although I agree with some of what you said above, I can't recall hitting anything at 1000 yards in the more recent AH versions. Try typing .target 1000 offline and see if the bullets even go that far. (I did this the other day when 1.09 first came out, and 950 yds seemed the limit on the spit1.) Only rear bomber guns have the ability to get reliable hits at that range in AH.
-
Maybe it is because I specialize in using 50 cals set to 650 yards convergence, but using any American aircraft so equipped, I can get good hits and even kills at that range when a target levels out to extend because it thinks it is safe. I don't recall ever reading about any real WWII pilots even firing at that range against airborne targets, much less hitting or getting kills. I suspect that the spread of rounds with range in AH is still too tight, though I have absolutely no hard numbers to back me up ;)
-
I think the problem is not so much that the "spread" is off, but merely the ability to set convergence out so far. How many aircraft in ww2 could, or even would set thier convergence to 650 yards. I don't know if people are just not realizing it, but if you fly and shoot with convergence out to 650, your bullets will still be at an "acceptable" convergence out to 1.3k (using the age-old x2 multiplier) I usually set my convergence to 200-250, mainly because my aim sucks, but in Buffs, i use 650. By setting the convergence of a buffs guns out that far, i can be much more lethal, at a much longer range than "historically" possible.
-
They say one picture says more than a thousand words..
Well here goes:
(http://users.kymp.net/cable130/ahss5.jpg)
-
ROFLMAO MrSid, and that's not a single hit either, pretty many there :)
Yeah, BETTER DM!! BETTER DM!!!
-
And there in lies another problem:
In real life, Buffs didn't have convergence, at least never with more than 2 guns per gunner. Another concession for the MA "gamers" for play balance ;)
I think the problem is not so much that the "spread" is off, but merely the ability to set convergence out so far. How many aircraft in ww2 could, or even would set thier convergence to 650 yards.
You make it sound as if the pilots could have hit at longer ranges if they had just set their guns for longer convergence ranges. In real-life, pilots set their convergence based on what they could hit accurately not the other way around. For the record, you can achieve convergence at infinity simply by pointing the guns straight ahead, so 650 yards could easily have been set in almost any plane that made provisions for adjustments. The elevation angle is the setting I am not sure about, but I am guessing that this could have been done as well. At the beginning of WW2, the British pointed their 8 x 0.303s every which way hoping to fill the sky with lead until they realized the only way that a 0.303 round would take any modern aircraft down was to concentrate fire.
There were always a few pilots that could snipe at long ranges compared to the others, but by far the majority fired at ranges of 300 yards or less. 500 yards is still considered a long range for air-to-air gunshots even with our modern day uber vulcan cannons and computer sights.
-
"In aces high, 1000 yard + shots are easy sure fired kills. "
Wow, I want whatever guns your plane has! Silly me, thinking 1K shots were chance shots at best from even 0 deflection that 9 out of 10 times do nothing more than waste ammo. Little did I know that everyone flies around routinely shooting each other at any angle at 1000 yards and never missing. Man, all those guys who almost never hit me at more than 400 yards or so, man they must all suck compared to your 1337 sn1p3r skillz.
Silliness aside, there's a big difference between "easy sure fire kills" and "occasional chance shot from a guy spraying away at near 0 deflection". Real combat pilots don't want to waste ammo; in a game it doesn't really matter. As a result we're more willing to take shots that combat pilots are trained not to attempt.
If the rare 1K shots are really such a pain just make the bullets disappear at 850 yards or so...wait, can't do that either because it's not "realistic" enough. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
J_A_B
-
it may have something to do with the fact you can zoom in so far
and sid, wasn't thats lanc black??
-
The "zoom" is not the problem. Zoom simulates what you would actually see in terms of size at the cost of field of view, where as the "normal" view is made smaller so you can see a more normal field of view.
Pilots may want to conserve ammo, but they also want to live longer. If they could fire on, hit, and kill unsuspecting targets from their 6 at 1000+ yards, they would have done so. Getting in close enough to hit risks getting spotted, which means having to shoot at a maneuvering target, which means a chance of dying in a dogfight. The whole goal of BVR missiles is to achieve this result.
I know HTC incorporates every bit of documented data they can. But real world engagement limitations (whatever their cause) prevent 1000 yard hits and kills or make them extremely rare. Whereas in AH, they are common. I presently can win several dogfights per 2 or 3 hour session using long range firing tactics. I have only flown about once a week or less for the past several months, so I am very rusty. It is not that I have any skill, it is that the ballistics are that easy.
I have fired a lot of rounds at rifle ranges. I have fired on targets at 500 yards with M-16 and M-14 rifles. To consistently hit a target at that range at all using single shots, you have to lay down prone, control your breathing, and pull the trigger very carefully. Even with a tripod, fully automatic fire will not even come close to this accuracy. An aircraft does not have anywhere near the stability and precision of a rifleman laying prone firing single shots.
Curiously enough, IL-2 has a much more difficult gunnery model despite being based on pretty much the same physical data as AH. I am curious as to what they did differently to make it harder to hit. Did they just throw in some random fudge factor to enhance gameplay? Or have they modeled something more realistically? Who knows?
-
I can hit at ranges of 1000k in a P47....I dont ever do any real damage, but it sure makes the bad guy turn instead of just run. Eventually if he stays straight enough you can snipe away at that range to maybe knock something off.
I think the problem you guys are having has something to do with impotent guns....but dont worry, its a common occurrence among those of the LW persuasion. :D
-
Maybe it is because I specialize in using 50 cals set to 650 yards convergence, but using any American aircraft so equipped, I can get good hits and even kills at that range when a target levels out to extend because it thinks it is safe. I don't recall ever reading about any real WWII pilots even firing at that range against airborne targets, much less hitting or getting kills. I suspect that the spread of rounds with range in AH is still too tight, though I have absolutely no hard numbers to back me up
Hans Wind had his .50cals set at 50m convergence. And he was one of best shots in FAF getting near 100% hit percentages. Finnish pilots were trained to shoot individual parts of airplane and generally opened fire under 150m.
Many .50cals will tumble if hit at long ranges, hits fall on larger area and miss which greatly reduces their effect and makes damage simply matter of luck. Hitting plane, not even speaking about certain parts will be trivial. Imagine the difference in closing to 50m and hitting radiator with good 1sec burst. Sure causes more damage than spraying from 600meters hoping to get lucky radiator hit which actually does enough damage.
Reason for opening fire only under 150m is clear. You don't want to just ping enemy, warn him and make him respond with evasive maneuvers. Finnish pilots considered their soviet opponents good pilots with bad gunnery. They opened fire at extreme long ranges even at 1000-500m) where changes of scoring hits was slim...they lost their suprise factor, showed their current heading and warned finnish pilots enough to make escaping and dodging rather easy. With shooting under 150m you usually get kill with one accurate burst. You only need to maneuver for that one burst. When enemy knows hes being hit its allready too late for him.
I think in AH spraying all over aircraft is too effective because of simple DM. Hit in left wing is hit in left wing. It's same if you fire 1sec burst into wingroot or spray allover wing.
I've read some RL accounts of FW 190s taking over 200 .50cal hits from 400-600 meters and keep flying, do you see this in AH? If that FW in RL was hit under 50m it would only need maybe 30-50x50cals i concentrated area.
-
I can hit at ranges of 1000k in a P47....I dont ever do any real damage, but it sure makes the bad guy turn instead of just run. Eventually if he stays straight enough you can snipe away at that range to maybe knock something off.
I think the problem you guys are having has something to do with impotent guns....but dont worry, its a common occurrence among those of the LW persuasion.
I think you are just using gamey feature provided by current DM.
FAF had both .50cal and mg151/20 armed planes. Most finnish vets have praised 1xmg151/20 of 109g-2 and g-6 because it's superior hitting power compared to .50cals. It would only need circa 3-6 well placed shots to down enemy fighter. More than 3 times as effective as .50cal, you could concenrate lethal amount of fire with in smaller timeframe, 1 hit did same amount of damage not depending on range(Mine shell) and one could concentrate fire more accurately due to spinner mounted cannon.
Well thats only opinion of pilots who used both of these guns in RL.
.50cal was good gun but cannons had some advantages over it.
And about impotent guns. No i feel just the opposite. All AH guns are way too effective. Look my previous post. It doesnt matter in AH if you hit 10sqr/cm area in wingroot or if you spray all over wing.
-
Fighter equipped with 8x 50cal is able to kill fighter at ranges up to 800 yards (at this distance nme plane starts to get too small) and bomber 1500 yards. There is nothing strage with that and it is not so difficult either. My K/D against bombers went up like a rocket after I dumped all "historical" attack styles and just parked in their six at 1500-1200 yards. It doesn't matter whether they see you or not, but when you start to fire (no tracers), it's too late for them to start fire back and down they goes.
I use 425 converenge in P-47s.
Just yesterday I killed a 110G-2 at the range 800 yards, he was flying wings level no maneuvers, easy target. 2-3 second burst was enough and with 3400 bullets you have plenty left for others. Some could call it spray and pray (usually the victim), but I don't, kill is a kill period.
Neel kearby scored a kill against an oscar when chasing him and fired long burst at distance 1500 yards. Also it wasn't so unusual to start firing at 1000 yards and scoring a kill. So, CAVE TONITRUM!
:)
jbroey3 wrote:
In aces high, 1000 yard + shots are easy sure fired kills
You sure have good shooting eye :)
-
Originally posted by BenDover
it may have something to do with the fact you can zoom in so far
and sid, wasn't thats lanc black??
The lanc sure is black, but I painted it white with hits.
If you want, I can post the film for viewing. I killed a 110 in a nearly similar way just before I hit the lanc at 1.5k.
I have to admit even I was surprised because I always thought max gun range in AH was 1.3k. I took long shots on the lanc, hitting it 3 times starting from 1.0,1.2 and finally 1.5.
-
I tend to think that most folks see this SIM as very good. Some of the comments seem valid, but we do lose flaps, wings and parts during combat. The picture above shooting the lanc, looks like someone above you is shooting. You must have tracers off.
Also, there is a tail hook on some planes. (as I recall)
Anyway, I still think that ACES HIGH is still the finest sim out there.
The support from HTC and their continued effort to make things better is amazing. Having been here since the Beta days, and there were only 5 or so planes only, and flying Air Warrior for years, What is here now, is light years from where it was before.
Making suggestions is encouraged and I am sure they are looking for ways to improve flight modelling, damage models, and many other issues regarding connectivity and all. It's a huge task, and one that I have grown to appreciate and admire.
Kudos to all and HTC!
K-KEN
http://www.cutthroats.com/
(http://www.cutthroats.com/art/buttons/on_patch8Xs.gif)
-
Originally posted by K-KEN
I tend to think that most folks see this SIM as very good. Some of the comments seem valid, but we do lose flaps, wings and parts during combat. The picture above shooting the lanc, looks like someone above you is shooting. You must have tracers off.
Also, there is a tail hook on some planes. (as I recall)
Anyway, I still think that ACES HIGH is still the finest sim out there.
The support from HTC and their continued effort to make things better is amazing. Having been here since the Beta days, and there were only 5 or so planes only, and flying Air Warrior for years, What is here now, is light years from where it was before.
Making suggestions is encouraged and I am sure they are looking for ways to improve flight modelling, damage models, and many other issues regarding connectivity and all. It's a huge task, and one that I have grown to appreciate and admire.
Kudos to all and HTC!
K-KEN
http://www.cutthroats.com/
(http://www.cutthroats.com/art/buttons/on_patch8Xs.gif)
K-Ken wrong, the tracers go above me because I was losing altitude after pulling correct lead to hit the buff. You can readily see that from my speed, was nearing stall.
To end futile guesses I'm posting the film here (http://users.kymp.net/cable130/lancaster shot.zip)
-
Post the AVI, slacker!
-
I won't argue with anyone about AH being the best. I like it better than any box flight sim I have and don't play any other online flight sim at all.
ilo's discussion sounds good, but AH knows the approximate average number of rounds it takes to get a kill and the edges of the bell curve for that data. So I am guessing it is not generally a case of too much damage being done for a given number of hits. I am guessing it is too many hits for a given range and rate of fire.
While we differ on our opinion of why, ilo and I agree on what: real pilots had to fire at much shorter ranges than possible in AH to be effective. This game rewards long range shots. In real-life it was a waste of ammo whether it was because a lot more rounds missed or the rounds that hit were ineffective.
AH certainly plays well as it is, but fixing this would get rid of one of the most unrealistic aspects of this sim. Of course, it will penalize the very planes I love to fly. But I want them to behave as much as possible like their real world counterparts.
-
Seeker unfortunately AHfilm porks the film that I try to cut and the whole film is way too long to be posted as an avi.
The film will have to do for now :)
-
Ahh well, the only kill I recall gettin at 1k+ was killing R4M's runstang at 1.1 in YakT with 1 hit +)
SKurj
-
Neel kearby scored a kill against an oscar when chasing him and fired long burst at distance 1500 yards.
And there were loads of pilots who got over 100 kills by shooting under 150m. :D
Yes, there was one finnish pilot who downed pe-2 at 1500m firing 2 rounds. He was testing if his mg151/20 was working at range of 1500m before closing in. That doesnt make 1500m effective firing range.
I simply dont buy AHs DM. All that i've read speaks against it. I never read account of ace saying its good to open up over 500m. I've read tens of accounts of them saying it's most importand to get as close as possible and use concentrated fire. I've read them saying turbulence was quite bad at 100m from enemy planes 6 so it was good to go closer to 50m where turbulence disappeared and ride was smooth. I've read them also suggest 150m firing distance since at closer distance turbulence would ruin aiming. (why they were so fond about aiming exact parts if you could just spray&pray like in AH?)
I've also read them to say that opening up at long ranges was common novice mistake. Novices didn't have nerves to go close and fired from 500m without success.
And don't say average AH player is better in shooting than expert pilots in ww2. They had years of training. And at least finnish fighter training concentrated in shooting. It's like saying average quake player has better aim than best snipers of ww2.
-
Do you really think that the distances in AH are displayed in METERS? Although for European players it would seem logical but don't forget that this game is made for US player's majority and those guys dont even know how long 1m is ;) So the distance is either in feets, yards or its just in some imaginary units for pilots orientation :) But im sure that HT or someone who has some more insight in this problem will drop a line on this here soon :)
-
Do you really think that the distances in AH are displayed in METERS?
No, i don't. What makes you think so?
1 meter=1.093 613 yards
Not too huge difference.
Although for European players it would seem logical but don't forget that this game is made for US player's majority
[sarcasm]I think i have noticed that. [/sarcasm]
and those guys dont even know how long 1m is So the distance is either in feets, yards or its just in some imaginary units for pilots orientation But im sure that HT or someone who has some more insight in this problem will drop a line on this here soon
Maybe it is time for you to learn. Vast majority of people in this planet use metric system and you want me to convert numbers to U.S system? Hmmmm...
Maybe it's other way around..atleast it would be more logical.
-
and just parked in their six at 1500-1200 yards.
Those RL Jagdfliegers must have been idiots(judging on gucams) closing close to b17 engines in dive and picking them off from close ranges.(under 200m/220yards for sure)
Also those 190 HOing b17 formations and opening up "as close as possible" and aiming front gunner/cockpit/wingroot must have had no idea what they were doing. Also again it was mentioned that new pilots usually lost their nerves and opened at too long ranges scoring no critical hits.
HA! Maybe they werent just aware of superb tactic..sit 1.4km(1531yards:D) away and let rock. :D
Im not coinvinced.
-
Originally posted by illo
Maybe it is time for you to learn. Vast majority of people in this planet use metric system and you want me to convert numbers to U.S system? Hmmmm...
Maybe it's other way around..atleast it would be more logical.
Im not saying that I want to convert metric system into imperial or anything... I just say that all readings in AH (speed, height, distance) are in feet, miles etc. so no metric system in AH (when not talking about gun calibers and bomb weights). Well duscussing why it is this way is IMO just like beating a dead horse.
Someone would quickly respond that to make it easyer for newbies and not to spread chaos in MA etc. is the reason for unification of those readouts. Yes I understand but stil dont like it but understand and im not squeaking about it coz I can live vith that quite well. Why it is not in metric system although vast majority of the planet uses it? Because its US game and US customers are the majority of players (at least I think so). Actually I dont think it matters anyway.
When I fly in AH i dont actually think about the units as about metres or yerds or miles... I take the 'numbers' just for orientation.
And really I think this debate takes us nowhere - Its just beating a dead horse anyway :D
-
And really I think this debate takes us nowhere - Its just beating a dead horse anyway
Right. I still would like an option to have historical gauges for all the planes. Imperial for U.S/G.B. Metric for others.
Btw did you know that, 1 furlong=201.168 meters=220 yards? :D
http://www.cchem.berkeley.edu/ChemResources/Weights-n-Measures/weights-n-measures.html
-
In RL, the common range for 190s to open fire against enemy buffs was from 50 to 200 meters. That was for sturm units armed with Mk108 guns. We may suppose that 400 meters would be ok for 20mm guns, and even than 600 meters would be ok for medium cal MGs, but this is against large buffs, not against small fighters.
As a side note, HE rounds would loose little or nothing of their destructive power with distance, the real affected ones are the AP rounds, that is, just the 50" type of ammo. But these 50"s can kill buffs at more than 1000 yards, kill panzers, etc ...
-
Originally posted by illo
Those RL Jagdfliegers must have been idiots(judging on gucams) closing close to b17 engines in dive and picking them off from close ranges.(under 200m/220yards for sure)
Also those 190 HOing b17 formations and opening up "as close as possible" and aiming front gunner/cockpit/wingroot must have had no idea what they were doing. Also again it was mentioned that new pilots usually lost their nerves and opened at too long ranges scoring no critical hits.
HA! Maybe they werent just aware of superb tactic..sit 1.4km(1531yards:D) away and let rock. :D
Im not coinvinced.
Post Analyzer 2.5 Initialized
Analyzing post...
** WARNING! - Sarcasm Detected! Continue? [Y/N]
Aborting
:D
-
you can't really compare underpowered mg151 and 20mm with the powerful BMG round or the hispano 20.
I can't hit much at 500 yards with a .223 either but I have no trouble hitting out to 700 or so with my old ought six Garrand. I know guys who find 1,000 yards childs play for their BMG fifty cal bolt actions. I know I could empty a 40 round clip from my puny little mini 14 .223 into a plane sized target at 4-500 yards thogh without trying too hard. And I ain't no great shakes with a rifle.
lazs
-
Adolf Galland mentions a couple of times in "The First and the Last" that he considered a bomber effect range to be less than 650. (He talks about it in the context of firing rockets into bomber groups.)
Anyway, back to the start of this, I'd love to see turbulence from weather and groud features added.
I guess I don't have much of a feel for the amount of turbulence there would be at any given altitude other than the anecdotal evidence that:
1) A Boeing 727 really jumps around on final into the Orange County CA airport. Training a gun on anything would flat be impossible.
2) A Boeing 727 at cruising altitude flies smooth enough to set a glass of wine on your seat tray.
3) A DC-9 on a hop between Oahu and Maui (probably the closest I'll ever come to a B-17) reaches 10K feet or so. It is still enough that a drink won't spill but is noticably jiggly.
-
A thousand yard hit with a 0.50 cal is never child's play. Even when you are on the ground with a bolt-action in a supported position such as prone or on a bench most people don't have that kind of accuracy. Now use a browning MG on full auto mounted on a less than rigid wing bouncing around in the air. If aircraft MGs could be aimed as accurately as infantry with bolt-action rifles, they could have carried only one MG and killed the pilot with a single shot every time.
Show me one shred of historical evidence that any pilot ever consistenly hit other aircraft at 1000 yards. There will always be some legendary golden BB shots in reality (losing 600+ mph jet fighters to a single rifle bullet in Vietnam for instance), but in AH the 0.50 cal MGs seem to be loaded exclusively with golden BBs.
As for the metric vs English units debate, I believe that the difference between yards and meters is small enough to be neglected in our discussions. I also agree that the US should have switched a long time ago. It would certainly make things easier for everyone involved except for a generation or two of older Americans. Perhaps US leaders won't force a change as a matter of pride? Or is it that they believe the average American is so stupid or stubborn as to be unable to change? However, in the real world, whoever has the power can do anything they want. The political, military, and economic strength of the US has ensured that most countries speak English to some extent and know what a pound, inch, foot, mile, and gallon are.
-
lazs, are you comparing firing with a riffle at a static target with firing from a moving plane against a moving target with six "rifles" in the wings that shoot with a convergence point well below 1000 yards and that make your firing platform to shake? IMO, there is little or nothing in common. In the same circunstances, even an olimpic shooting champion would have enormous problems to score a single hit at 1000 meters.
-
A few points to keep in mind that haven't been brought up on this thread yet (though they have plenty of times in the past).
Most of us are far better "shots" than was the case in WW2. Gunnery training was sketchy at best, nonexistant in some cases. Even a concept like deflection, which we take for granted as a natural reflex, takes time to learn. I have probably "shot down" 10,000 targets since the Falcon EGA days, and I'm sure I'm not alone. In WW2, farmboys with bird hunting experience recall being at a distinct advantage compared to their city peers. Closer convergence not only compensated for poor shooting, but maximized the accuracy of poor ballistic weapon systems and the damage from kenetic energy rounds. Of course, the goal was also to get the kill by total surproise as well.
600-1,000m kills with the .50 were/are rare (at least in WW2, but not at the higher altitudes in Korea) but not impossible in RL. A .50 cal has the capabilitiy to hit targets at 1000m easily. I certainly recall hitting stationary targets at least in the 800m range in RL. You just walk the rounds in. However, in AH as in RL, if that target makes even the slightest 1g weave at that distance in AH, the chance of a single ping is virtually nil. A few days ago I had a F6F burn most of his ammo load over about a minute of time spent shooting at me at that range without result. All I had to do was a lazy, alternating weave. However, if the target is flying a wings-level extension (and how rare is that here?), then it is just a matter of ammo load and adjustment.
Life and death is not an issue here. We can waste ammo at poor % shots, and target fixate as long as we want trying to make those shots, without a real penalty beyond a trip back to the tower.
Just my thoughts.
Charon
-
And, MANDOBLE a hardmounted .50 does not shake all that much, even when mounted on a light HUMVEE. 50s are in fact, rather boring to fire. The only time I saw a. 50 "shake" was when it was on a tripod in sandy soil without sandbagging the rear spades.
As a side note, HE rounds would loose little or nothing of their destructive power with distance, the real affected ones are the AP rounds, that is, just the 50" type of ammo. But these 50"s can kill buffs at more than 1000 yards, kill panzers, etc ...
Well, yeah. There was a reason why the .50 was used as an anti-armor weapon on APCs until the Bradley. If it will chew up a BMP or BTR60 at that range then it will certainly do the same to a B-17 or the upper-ear engine deck of a Panzer.
Charon
-
To say that there was little or no gunnery training is simply a myth. These people were being sent into combat with as much training as time and money would permit. They may not have gotten hours and hours of deflection shooting like you can online, but it was certainly mentioned in their training. Once in action, they flew missions daily. Those that lived got the chance to complete their training the hard way. The aces in real life were easily as good or better at shooting than most of the sim aces here. The aces did not shoot at 1,000 yards. To think that a LW pilot that has 300 kills in 5+ years of fighting or even US 20+ kill aces are inferior to any sim pilot is rubbish. Read what these men had to say about getting kills. Some were awesome shots and didn't harmonize their guns to point blank ranges. But none of them fired, hit, or got kills on a regular basis at ranges exceeding 500 yards because it just wasn't possible with the equipment they had.
We are supposed to be flying and fighting under similar conditions with identical equipment, but some aspect of physics has been neglected in the area of gunnery. Dismissing the flaw by saying hundreds if not thousands of us are more proficient at air-to-air gunnery than real-life aces is ludicrous!
-
Originally posted by streakeagle
We are supposed to be flying and fighting under similar conditions with identical equipment, but some aspect of physics has been neglected in the area of gunnery. Dismissing the flaw by saying hundreds if not thousands of us are more proficient at air-to-air gunnery than real-life aces is ludicrous!
I don't think 100 kills in 5 years is anywhere near the thousands upon thousands of kills I've had in sims, so I clearly have orders of magnitudes more experience shooting from an aircraft in AH than any RL WWII pilot had in the real deal. Clearly, in this environment, I'm a better shot than I could ever have possibly been in WWII. Oh yeah, and I don't regularly shoot at anything longer than about 400 in my Jug in AH. Anything more is almost always a waste of ammo. I have NEVER seen a film of somebody getting multiple kills at 1k and over in AH, and the only 1k or more kills I've ever made were versus non-maneuvering aircraft. That's a long way from making long shots effective on a regular basis.
In addition, saying we are flying and fighting under similar conditions with identical equipment is the MOST ludicrous thing I've seen posted in a while. Give me a break. Sure, we try to simulate things as best we can, but that's LONG LONG way from similar conditions with identical equipment. We're sitting on our tulips looking at a flat screen with no G forces, no temperature, no real vibration, and most of all, no risk of death. The situations and equipment couldn't be more different.
Lephturn
-
To say that there was little or no gunnery training is simply a myth.
I would say that inadequate to average gunnery training was far more the norm. Most books, particularly ones like Heiden's that are full of individual stories would seem to support this. "The Mighty Eighth" is particularly insightful in this regard, though it is more focused on the bomber crews. Some of course, didn't even get formal gunnery training, though most at least got to take some runs on a target sleeve or two. This seems to have been a rather random affair though, even late in the war.
The aces in real life were easily as good or better at shooting than most of the sim aces here.
Some were. Bong, though, admits to being a poor shot who had to get close to get kills. This changed when he underwent additional training in between tours, which apparently HE felt was needed.
To think that a LW pilot that has 300 kills in 5+ years of fighting or even US 20+ kill aces are inferior to any sim pilot is rubbish. Read what these men had to say about getting kills
I believe Hartmann got close because his superior eyesight permitted him the luxury of surprise attacks most of the time, at least that is what he said in his book. Wait until the plane fills the windscreen, fire a short and devastating burst, and move on. Of course, there were those who said he was a fine shot at any distance, just that he chose that method being more of a "head" fighter than a "muscle" fighter.
But none of them fired, hit, or got kills on a regular basis at ranges exceeding 500 yards because it just wasn't possible with the equipment they had.
No argument with the first part at all. There are, though, more than a few accounts of hits and even kills at beyond 500 yards in the stories contained in Heiden's books and others. The pilots were surprised, but they took the shot in the first place knowing there was at least some possibility. 1000m is within the ballistic capabilities of the weapon. In Korea, 600m hits were not uncommon at high altitudes.
We are supposed to be flying and fighting under similar conditions with identical equipment, but some aspect of physics has been neglected in the area of gunnery. Dismissing the flaw by saying hundreds if not thousands of us are more proficient at air-to-air gunnery than real-life aces is ludicrous!
I don't know. The fact that we can literally get thousands of "kills" and be killed 1000s of times in the process would make a certain mastery of the game (obviously not WW2 air-to-air combat) hardly a ludicrous proposition. Of course, if there are physics flaws I would like to hear about them, please expand with specific examples. Not that I would understand, but if an engineering type like Ho Hun (or several others with that mathematical bent) can go along with it I certainly will.
Hey, I agree that kills beyond 500m were rare. I don't really think WW2 pilots had a lot of time to sit there, SA focused on one extending enemy, and just spray and pray. I don't believe the enemy aircraft gave them an easy set up with a wings-level extension either.
I have found such long range kills to be rare in AH as well (far more than AW). When flying an American aircraft the best I hope for at that range is a whizzer or a single plink or two to throw off an evader and make him do something stupid. Though if he's flying wings level and I have the time and ammo load, perhaps achieve more in the d600-800 range. I'm certainly not the best pilot in the game, but I don't fear a spray and pray from d700 when I'm on the receiving end. I really don't see what the fuss is about, and I tend to fly the La7 in the arena lately and it has about the worst ballistics of the bunch.
Charon
-
Lephturn,
Nothing personal (there are few others whose opinion I respect as much on this BB), but let me get this straight:
AH is not a sim... it in no way represents the equipment and conditions faced by WWII pilots, yet your having thousands of hours of "gunnery" playing games such as this makes you a better gunner than Adolf Galland, Bubi Hartman, Richard Bong... etc. ? I think we have different definitions of "ludicrous".
Those with talent don't need thousands of hours of practice, they inherently do well. I saw this while participating on my highschool rifle team, but it is true of anything. Michael Jordan on a bad day will shoot hoops better than 99.9% of the people in this country no matter how many hours they practice.
As far as non-maneuvering targets go, surely you know the stat that 80% of all kills have been against aircraft that didn't realize they were under attack until too late. Big lumbering B-17s had to maintain formation and were also very large targets. If pilots could reliably hit them at 1000 yards to avoid getting in range of all those 50s, they would have. Likewise, if B-17 gunners could kill LW interceptors at 1k, we would never have lost any B-17s.
I am saying that in 5+ years of war where some of the most talented and skilled pilots ever flew, they just didn't fire much outside of 500 yards even against non-maneuvering bombers and it was because it was too difficult. Whereas in AH, I, as someone who "flies" maybe an hour or two a week, can consistently hit fighter sized targets at 1000 yards who usually know I am there but don't evade because they assume incorrectly that my guns don't have a good chance of hitting.
Back to flight sim hours versus the real world: if the best of the flight simmers with zillions of hours who has never flown a real aircraft was given the opportunity to shoot at a towed target (non-manuevering billboard sized) using a real P-51 (or whatever warbird you want to choose) and he had to compete against an experienced WWII ace who has practically no time firing guns, especially since WWII (lets say Chuck Yeager), who do you think would score better?
I would lay my money on the real pilot. Now if we repeated that test on a flight sim, the simmer would probably win (unless Chuck Yeager is an avid flight simmer and used to the differences between sims and real-world physics).
But, I would argue AH is still reasonably close to the real thing (or I wouldn't even waste my time playing it) and that it is worth it to continue to find ways to make it better. When people want something fixed in this game, they are always required to provide data, but sometimes that data is not available and they have to guess then refine it based on historical evidence. If the Bf109 could outturn the Spitfire, I wouldn't need data to prove that was wrong. There is plenty of kill data: what range and how many rounds. There is a total lack of data to support effective firing ranges beyond 500 yards. Even with my lackluster skills, in AH, I have plenty of kills (not just hits) beyond 500 yards. I don't think someone with my skill level should be able to do this. The fact that I can sends me a red flag as big as being able to outturn a Spit in a 109.
-
Of course nothing personal. :)
I'm not saying I'm a better air gunner than Galland or one of the real Aces. As you point out, we are talking about different worlds here. I'm saying that I simply have far more experience in my "world", than they ever had in theirs. Sure there are naturally talented folks in both camps... I'm not one of them in AH btw... I'm not a very good shot. People do learn from experience, even at high levels of skill and with lots of experience, so I think that is a factor in the skill level of your average WWII pilot vs. your average AH pile-it. I think I'm still improving, and I bet there were lots of high scoring WWII aces who were constantly improving as well. My point is that me as a competent but pretty average shooter in AH can't hit regularly at the ranges you guys are talking about. I can't do it. My personal experience in AH seems to match the stories and such I have read pretty well actually. Maybe your experiences don't... but then again maybe you are one of those exceptionally talented folks.
Now about the "simulation" thing. Sure, AH tries to simulate WWII air combat... but we are missing SO MANY of the factors that made it difficult to be successful. I don't see how effectiveness at various ranges can really be compared when there are so many variables missing. It's just so different, that looking at anecdotes of the end results of the two situations and infering that there is a problem in the gunnery or damage model based on that doesn't make sense to me.
Look, HTC has done their best to put in place a very accurate gunnery model. If your experiences don't match the anecdotes you've read, you need to do some tests to try and figure out why. Are the rates of fire too high? Are the trajectories wrong? Is dispersion wrong? Is kinetic or explosive energy out of whack? I know the crew at HTC has though of all of this, and made it as correct as possible. What do you expect them to do, to fix the problem if they can't see what's wrong? Look at it from their perspective... there are a few folks that think "something is wrong with the gunnery". Should they invest time and resources into ripping it all apart looking for problems when they've already done their level best to make it right? I don't think so.
-
I am well aware that HTC does their best, but if another company with access to the same data and physics equations has found a more accurate way to model the process (IL-2?), then I would like to see such results incorporated in AH as well. The test for any model is whether the results are the same for a given set of conditions. It does not matter what method you use to get the results as long as every possible input produces the expected output. Effective air to air gunnery range is not my opinion or an anecdote. It is a fact that holds true to this very day. Modern jet fighters with the latest sights can handle high deflection shots impressively, but at best have increased the range to 1,000 yards when using the 20mm Vulcan at 50 to 100 rps.
A reasonable effective maximum range for modern gun systems against fighter targets is about 3,000 ft. -- Robert L. Shaw, "Fighter Combat Tactics and Maneuvering"
Using tables from that reference for the lethality:
6 x 0.50 cal M2 = 6 x 6.4 = 38.4
1 x 20 mm M61 = 144.8
Given the lethality varies inversely with the square of range, if a modern fighter used 6 x M2, they should be able to be effective out to: SQR(38.4/144.8) x 3,000 ft = 1545 ft = 500 yards... of course against maneuvering targets WWII aircraft would be at a disadvantage, but against non-maneuvering targets, there would be no difference.
Funny how the math supports observed combat results :rolleyes:
If I can assume HTC has accurately used data on the number of rounds required to damage/destroy aircraft, and I assume the rate of fire is correct, then I don't need to perform any tests to identify where the problem is. The only thing left is getting the distribution pattern right as a function of range, which they have already improved more than once. It doesn't matter which variable they have neglected (ballistic dynamics, vibration, etc.), the spread of the rounds can be increased for a given aircraft until it matches observed accuracy. They changed the Ostwind in such a way when it was too uber using the existing model. Why can't they degrade the M2 and Hispano armed aircraft the same way? Depending on the actual cause of this difference, it may be particular to the type of weapon and/or the particular aircraft. I don't know how to get enough data to allow for that. Perhaps one setting common to all weapons and all aircraft would be accurate enough for discrepancies to be undetectable by players?
For me the final litmus test for a WWII 6x0.50 cal gunnery model would be if most pilots that practiced could average 200-300 yard kills, exceptional pilots could consistently hit at 500 yards, but no amount of skill would permit more than a few lucky hits at 1000 yards. That would generally follow historical results and provide me with what I am paying for... ever increasing immersion ;) I don't know enough about German, British, or Japanese experience in WWII to set any standards for them :p But I would expect the ballstic differences already modeled by AH would take care of them as well.
-
And, MANDOBLE a hardmounted .50 does not shake all that much, even when mounted on a light HUMVEE. 50s are in fact, rather boring to fire. The only time I saw a. 50 "shake" was when it was on a tripod in sandy soil without sandbagging the rear spades.
All wing mounted cannon/machineguns suffer from inaccuracy caused by vibrations in wing. It's not so much about recoil. Have you ever taken a look at wings when in airplane. They are no means steady. If AH models this..then ok.
But I really think it doesn't.
-
aces high is my favorite game and will probaly be for a while to come. even if it got old i'd stick around just as repayment for all the hours i've spent having a blast here.
i like that the people behind the scenes don't get as mired in the trivialities as we players do and they still focus on creating a place that's fun...remember fun?
i do think the next revision needs some damage model changes for sure though. i don't know if it's a 109 thing or what but my plane seems to exist in 2 states: with wing or without. i'd love to see more complex damage.
the problem i guess is balancing the visuals against the fact that 400 people are online!i don't know much about programming but i've heard that.
it's kinda like america though - the bigger the problem the bigger and more clever the solution. i'm sure they'll come up with something kick bellybutton :)
(but if not, keep throwing planes out - the natives aren't restless as long as they have stats to dispute)
-
Saburo Sakai certainly had scathing things to say about the American gunnery he encountered in 1944.
-
Originally posted by illo
All wing mounted cannon/machineguns suffer from inaccuracy caused by vibrations in wing. It's not so much about recoil. Have you ever taken a look at wings when in airplane. They are no means steady. If AH models this..then ok.
But I really think it doesn't.
HiTech, can you clarify this point?
streakeagle, I found two main characteristics in the IL2 gunnery:
1 - A lot of nose jinking and yawing when firing, dificulting the gunnery a lot except when shooting shot by shot. But, in any case, similar bullet trajectories that AH.
2 - The bullets are extremely thin, that is, I may get very close to a P2 and fire a bullet that passes a pair of pixels above the P2 left wing that is almost filling all my screen. Tried that with AH and the drones, and the result is always a hit. Do we have bigger bullets? Or bigger hit boxes in the 3D objects? dont know ...
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Saburo Sakai certainly had scathing things to say about the American gunnery he encountered in 1944.
Hehe...yes I remember reading about it too. He was very suprised about gunnery of Hellcat pilots. I got impression he waited for Hellcats to open fire from long range as allways. He waited until he saw tracers coming close enough to his zero an started hard berrelroll to get snapshot on passing Hellcat. There were about 10 Hellcats above him attacking one after another(to avoid friedly fire) with no success(iirc saburo shot down few of them). Reason for this left barrel roll being so successful was because Hellcat pilots couldnt put lead to his maneuver since they pointed nose at him for long range spraying and when firing couldnt pull enough lead in time.
-
Originally posted by illo
And there were loads of pilots who got over 100 kills by shooting under 150m. :D
:rolleyes:
It seems I have to explain my writings to you illo.
My point was that it was possible to get kills from that distance even thought 50cals maximum effective range was 750 yards (if my memory serves). You must understand that when comparing FAF fighters guns to P-47 guns there is big difference in amount of ammo and lethality, which will affect to gunnery training / gunnery.
Those RL Jagdfliegers must have been idiots(judging on gucams) closing close to b17 engines in dive and picking them off from close ranges.(under 200m/220yards for sure)
Also those 190 HOing b17 formations and opening up "as close as possible" and aiming front gunner/cockpit/wingroot must have had no idea what they were doing. Also again it was mentioned that new pilots usually lost their nerves and opened at too long ranges scoring no critical hits.
HA! Maybe they werent just aware of superb tactic..sit 1.4km(1531yards) away and let rock.
Im not coinvinced.
Keep it coming, sounds great...
Few replies to your postings;
- FAF was not the only AF to train gunnery.
- About the russian pilots quality : "Not only were the Soviets still employing an outdated 3-plane fighter tactical doctrine, normally without the benefit of radios, but their overall level of pilot training was quite low, even though there were some experienced pilots available. As an illustration, it was not uncommon for wingmen to follow their leader around during an engagement and fire their guns whenever he did, whether they were pointed in the general vicinity of an enemy aircraft or not.." -Robert L. Shaw's writings from Winter War.
- Comparing AH and RL gunnery is simply foolish. Over 90% of all air to air kills were achieved without victim never saw it coming. So why to open up from 500 yards? No need to, because you could be pretty sure that you get him, before he sees you.
-
A reasonable effective maximum range for modern gun systems against fighter targets is about 3,000 ft. -- Robert L. Shaw, "Fighter Combat Tactics and Maneuvering"
Using tables from that reference for the lethality:
6 x 0.50 cal M2 = 6 x 6.4 = 38.4
1 x 20 mm M61 = 144.8
Given the lethality varies inversely with the square of range, if a modern fighter used 6 x M2, they should be able to be effective out to: SQR(38.4/144.8) x 3,000 ft = 1545 ft = 500 yards... of course against maneuvering targets WWII aircraft would be at a disadvantage, but against non-maneuvering targets, there would be no difference.
Funny how the math supports observed combat results
I have the Shaw book as well, so I reread that chapter. I noticed he did not define "reasonable effective maximum" in detail which kinda makes all the math useless when you are speaking in absolutes like “can’t” and “never”. You seem to contend that a hit or kill at distances over 500m should be nearly impossible. I would contend that it should be possible, but rare, which I believe it is in AH. There were cases in the war that support this.
However, I agree, 500m was about the maximum range you could "reasonably" expect to shoot down a plane with a couple of good bursts from anecdotal evidence. IMO, 500m is the maximum range you can reasonably expect to light up a target in AH that is doing even the slightest maneuvers. I do, however, think you can reasonably expect to score a few hits and maybe even kill on a non maneuvering target at longer ranges with a full ammo load, plenty of experience and no distractions. Having convergence set to 400m+, which is a-historical from a one size fits all policy, certainly helps.
In response to one of your earlier declarative statements about a high level of shooting expertise among WW2 pilots, The Shaw book provides some insight there, only a few pages away from where you pulled your material:
"I am not a good shot. Few of us are. To make up for that I hold my fire until I have a shot of less than 20 deg. deflection and I'm within 300 yards. Good discipline on this score can make up for a great deal.
Lt. Col. John C. Meyer, USAAF"
While I don't believe the ballistics are porked (there have been several exhaustive threads on this that I have followed in the short year I have been here), I do believe the ability to set convergence beyond 400m is a bit gamy. Perhaps that adjustment would realistically meet your concerns. Still, I fail to find this a problem.
All wing mounted cannon/machineguns suffer from inaccuracy caused by vibrations in wing. It's not so much about recoil. Have you ever taken a look at wings when in airplane. They are no means steady. If AH models this..then ok.
illo
A pintle mounted .50 is not stabilized in the vertical, except by your two hands. Most of the vibration I noticed when firing the weapon was front to rear, given the nature of the weapon's action. The vibration was not sufficient, even with a "loose" vertical axis to be a significant detriment to putting a reasonable number of rounds on target, even at long range. The only wild dispersion I noticed was a M2 with a shot-out barrel, that sent rounds corkscrewind down range. I would say that compared to convergence, vibration would be a relatively minor factor impacting dispersion -- IMO.
Charon
-
To above post.
I was not saying vibrations are caused by firing guns. Airflow around wings makes them vibrate and i can't see how thiswouldn't affect accuracy.
-
Also AHs distance counter and neon icons ease gunnery way too much. Personally i would prefer no icons if there was historical match up for planes.
At least that laser rangefinder should be made WAY less accurate. Add this to more detailed damage modelling (where you need to concentrate your fire more accurately.) and greater dispersion for wing mounted guns further away from wingroot.
After these changes, i think, AH gunnery would better represent RL conditions and effects.
-
bump.
-
Saburo Sakai also made the statement that the Hellcat pilots appeared to be very green pilots...as green as the Zero pilots he was leading into combat. That particular combat took place over Iwo Jima several months before the Marines landed on it.
Eighty zeros took off for that intercept mission...more than 40 were shot down. The next day the survivors took off again for another intercept...and their numbers were again cut in half. By the third day only a handful of Zeros were still flyable.
On another note, anyone who shoots rifles in the real world and studies ballistics charts knows that projectiles lose impact energy rapidly once they pass the 200 yard mark. A .50 caliber projectile retains its energy quite well because of its weight, as does a 20mm cannon shell. But their effectiveness should still be considerably less at 800 or 100 yards than they are at the muzzle. Damage to an airframe should therefore be considerably less at those distances. Is this effect modeled in Aces High?
Regards, Shuckins
-
Obviously we are free to interpret what we have read differently, but I will stand by my interpretation based on my experience and understanding of military defintions.
Shaws "reasonably effective range" applies to an aircraft that is using advance LCOS sights with precision range information, only marginally better than our neon icons.
"Effective range" is a well defined term when discussing weapons, i.e. the effective range of M-14 and M-16 rifles as opposed to their maximum ballistic range. It is the range which you can expect to be able to aim and reliably land hits on an assumed target area (a man for an infantry rifle, an aircraft for a fighter) with sufficient energy to do useful damage.
According to the defintion used in military specifications (which I am sure Shaw intended), "Effective range" does not account for target motion... that is not a limit of the weapon, but a limit of the shooter's skill. Even against a fighter flying straight and level with an LCOS sight and a Vulcan, with 940 rounds of ammo, a 1,000 yard shot is pretty much at the limit of the weapon's accuracy. Of course the shooter's skill level may even further degrade that range, but only luck will increase it... that is the defintion of effective range.
The A-10's GAU-8 Avenger cannon is unique among aircraft carried guns since its combination of weight, velocity, and barrel length actually give it double the typical effective range: 2,000 yards. However, it only has a simple fixed reticle sight with no range information, which requires substantial pilot skill to employ effectively. In exercises over the Red Flag range with computer calculated hit results that are about as realistic as it can get, A-10s get gun kills despite the poor sight thanks to rate of fire, the presumed need to score only one hit, and the invalid assumption of their non-evasive target that they are out of range and not a threat.
Now back to our flight sim: IL-2 and AH have similar goals in terms of realism and access to identical information, yet they yield different results. There are no precise equations, so different people will choose different ways to approximate the same physics. So of course there will be different results when testing the models. I happen to agree with many others that have posted on the BB that the increased difficulty in IL-2 appears to be closer to reality. You cited a quote that the average pilot should have to shoot inside 300 yards... I agree completely. But in AH, anyone (even a newbie) can win an HO by commencing fire outside of 1,000 yards and hitting outside of 500 yards. There is absolutely no precedent for this in reality. If AH's model was even within 10% of the truth, there would be a notable number of examples from real life matching the events that happen here. A lot of rounds were fired between 1939 and 1945 by hundreds of thousands of aircraft. Even novices spraying and praying at 500 yards should have returned quite a few long range successes the way it does here in AH. The tactics employed in WWII reflected the limitations imposed by reality, not the other way around.
-
What I think is the root of the problem: how WW2 was fought vs how AH is played.
Some of your earlier posts"
Maybe it is because I specialize in using 50 cals set to 650 yards convergence, but using any American aircraft so equipped, I can get good hits and even kills at that range when a target levels out to extend...
Pilots may want to conserve ammo, but they also want to live longer. If they could fire on, hit, and kill unsuspecting targets from their 6 at 1000+ yards, they would have done so...
Streakeagle
I don't recall ever reading of anybody setting convergence at 650m and playing the role of lone sniper in WW2. Was it because of ballistics? Or was it because it didn't fit with the combat environment? First off, formal policy dictated closer convergence (least common denomoniator) which suited the gunnery skills of most pilots, imporved the firing solution for any defllection shooting and maximized the damage of kenetic energy weapons. Get close, get the kill and move on was much preferred over sniping. Again, there have been many threads on ballistics issues in AH that seem to support the general performance of the M2 (usually around the LW vs US weapon debates) as far as being able to hit a target at that range, though the point on damage at that range is an interesting one.
Sniping is A-historical, but for some very non-ballistic reasons. Sniping was just not part of the team focus of WW2 air combat. A good shooter sniping in the attack would have alerted an entire enemy formation of an attack beyond the effective range of most all of the other friendly pilots in a flight. Also, with sniping once the close-in fighting starts you have a harder time covering you friends. And, with the element of surprise, why bother taking the lower percentage shot anyway? Even Hartmann chose to shoot from well within where he could get kills if the need arose. And ballistically, longer-ranged shots will tend to be lower percentage shots so why not move closer and get better overall results?
And, how many enemies, where it was life and death, just "assumed" they were safe with tracers flying by them and flew a totally wings-level extension at a low rate of seperation? A low-e manuver or two is all that it takes to make getting hit in AH almost impossible at these ranges. Similarly, how many allied pilots had the luxury of flying wings level in a furball combat environment for an extended period of time wasting ammo on such a low percentage shot?
Sniping and 650m convergence settings does make more sense for a good lone wulf pilot flying into a series of fights in AH in a ganging environment, or blowing through a furball or for the occasional 1v1 with a HO, etc. In AH surprise is seldom achieved and lone wulf tactics are as much the norm as squad flying, so getting close isn't really all that important if you practice the long shot sufficiently. I agree,with you that 500m should be the common range for an expert to have a better than 50/50 chance of scoring good kills with a longer convergence setting. However, I have read specific examples of pilots scoring hits at the 600m range with 300m convergence and as Ilio and vector point out kills WERE actually scored at 1000m+ range. But not commonly. I feel that's the same for AH too. even you note:
I presently can win several dogfights per 2 or 3 hour session using long range firing tactics. I have only flown about once a week or less for the past several months, so I am very rusty. It is not that I have any skill, it is that the ballistics are that easy...
Several kills in 2 or 3 hours of dogfighting doesn't sound like an awful lot to me.
According to the defintion used in military specifications (which I am sure Shaw intended), "Effective range" does not account for target motion...
Again, we don't really know. I reread his section on gunnery and felt he was talking about how far away you could reasonably expect to get a gun kill before you started thinking about a Sidewinder, etc. As for the vulcan and the rest, apples to oranges. I've seen a maximum effective range listed at 2,000m, though I'm sure that would be a very low percentage range given the ballistic limitiations of the system. If somebody has more knowledge on this weapons system please chime in.
Again, I fail to see a real problem here, and I've been shot down a lot :) Perhaps locking convergence at a max of 400m would make the environment the most realistic. That doesnt bother me, since I need to get close anyway.
Charon
-
Historical aces went "sniping" they looked for lone aircraft and attacked from behind out of the sun. Those that had lesser gunner skills waited until point blank (< 150 yards) to fire. Those with the skills set their convergence out as far as their skill and physics permitted. The 0.30 cals were generally given much shorter convergence ranges to make up for their lack of lethality with more hits. Historically, convergence was either set based on doctrine (based on combat experience of what worked) or based on personal preference (also based on combat experience of what worked). I am certain there would be one or more known cases of 500+ yard convergence zones being preferentially used if the weapons had been effective at these ranges.
However, using infantry rifles as an example, the battle rifles were technically effective from 800 to 1200 yards. Postwar analysis showed that despite this fact, by far the majority of kills occurred at less than 400 yards for a large number of reasons. So rather than spend all of this money and weight on a weapon being underutilized, the assault rifle was born with the idea that it would be lighter and permit more rounds to be carried for a given weight with the theoretical range matching the actual one. So as you have inferred, maybe I am completely wrong in my assessment that it is a ballistics problem. But it doesn't change the fact that the results are wrong ;) If the model is fed historical inputs but does not produce historical outputs, something in the model needs to be fixed. Of course since this is a game being marketed for profit, if the majority of customers are happy and keep paying, then it isn't broke.
But I would like to bring up the Ostwind again: it used the same model as everything else and produced unrealistic kill rates, so it was adjusted to compensate. I am fairly certain that this is also the case for the 0.50 cal and 20 mm Hispanos. I lack the depth of knowledge to evaluate axis weapons, so I never comment on them. As a paying customer who is only 99.9999% happy, I am asking for the other 0.0001% to be adjusted to my taste :D and I still believe the historical data supports my taste since that is where I acquired it in the first place.
It is not "immersive" for me if it just doesn't feel right. Every time I shoot off someone's elevator/rudder at 800+ yards and end up with a kill, it doesn't feel right. Since it is possible, I will continure doing it rather than give my opponent an advantage, but as the length of this thread indicates, I would really like to see this changed somehow.
-
Originally posted by illo
Personally i would prefer no icons if there was historical match up for planes.
Really?
Checked your CT stats, but couldn't find any, actually, couldn't find any stats on you... Wouldn't mind to share your handle?