Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Samm on April 15, 2002, 01:23:05 PM
-
From the tailgunner position on a b17 I can hit and shoot down planes that are 1500meters away, I have even hit them from 1.7.
I have never hit a plane farther away than 1100 with the 50cals on a fighter. Are the mg's on buffs modeled differently ? If so, why ?
-
Ok just did a test offline, 50cals on p38 will hit target up to 1300meters, they don't hit at 1400.
Front guns of b17 will hit target up to 1400 meters, they don't hit at 1500.
Tail guns of b17 hit target up to 1700 meters, they don't hit at 1800.
What's up with that ?
-
denial incoming! ;)
-
The b17guns have greater range, so I presume the projectiles have greater velocity, and of course if they have greater velocity they will do more kinetic energy damage than the 50cals on fighters .
Please don't get angry, I'm not ragging on the game . I just want to understand this better .
Please no hijackers from Mandoland, I want this thread to be taken seriously .
-
Samm search for previous topics on this, the guns are 100% identical, but do to drag firing a gun backwards, the bullet will travel farther relative to your air plane.
-
Ok Hitech, thanks for replying. But what about the forward firing guns ?
-
Ok I did the test again, this time with both aircraft at 200mph, and guess what. The p38 guns had the same range as the forward firing guns of the b17(1400) . But once you go faster than about 250 in the p38 the range drops to 1300. I have a better grasp of it now .
-
And do the guns firing backward get a lower velocity then the ones firing forward? For the guns firing forward it should be velocity + airplane speed while the ones firing backward should be velocity - airplane speed.
Is this modelled?
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
And do the guns firing backward get a lower velocity then the ones firing forward? For the guns firing forward it should be velocity + airplane speed while the ones firing backward should be velocity - airplane speed.
Is this modelled?
head on collision= bullets v + plane v (plane is flying into the bullets)
rear end is= bullet v - plane (plane is flying away from the bullets)
i think thats right, but i'm no phyics expert
-
It's V1 + V2 in all cases.
We are dealing with a 3d vel vector. not speed.
And you can see that it is modeled by samm's test.
Btw even thow the bullet is travling less distance relaitve to the ground when shooting back, it's effective range relative to the plane is increased.
-
When the rear guns of the B17 shoot to the rear, their speed should be the velocity of the gun - (minus) the speed of which the plane is moving forward, wether the bullets hit harder because a plane behind is closing in fast is another thing, they should have less V then normal though.
-
Wilbus, you are mixing terms, speed and vel are not the same thing. Vel is speed and direction.
So if a plane is doing {0,100,0} and the bullet is launched {0,-10,0} they just get summed for all cases.
-
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5664&perpage=50&pagenumber=1
This may help .
-
But, let's say, without using any kind of real numbers, just make up some fantasy numbers.
A plane is moving with 300 feet per second in East bound direction. The rear gunner, fires a Bullet straight West (straight 6 oc) with 1000fps.
Shouldn't the bullet have a speed of 600 feet per second heading West?
-
In relation to the ground .
Not in relation to the gun that fired it, or the plane that is chasing the aft firing gun .
-
Two planes are 1500 yards apart. Front plane and Back plane. Front is directly in front of Back.
Both are traveling at 400mph.
A) If Back plane fires at Front plane... how far would the bullet have to travel to hit Front Plane?... at... lets say 1200 fps.
B) If Front plane fires at Back plane... how far would the bullet have to travel to hit Back plane? lets say at 800 fps.
When you set up the target and fire at it, you are simulating the above scenario. If you think both A and B is the same distance... you are sorely mistaken.
AKDejaVu
-
How about heading west at 700 fps relative to the ground.
If the 300 fps is relative to the ground and the 1000fps is relative to the gun.
How it would be done with an axis system where north is Y and positive X is east.
Plane Vel
{300,0,0}
Bullet Vel relative to the gun
{-1000,0,0}
Net Vel relative to the ground.
{-700,0,0}
Wind speed from the north at 20 fps
{0,-20,0}
Air Vel for caculating drag would be
{-700,-20,0}
Not what is the speed of the bullet relative to the air?
-
African or European?
-
It gets better. When deflection firing bomber guns you don't lead the con, you trail it on a shot behind the 3-9 line. The velocity imparted on the bullet from the motion of the bomber causes it to hit a point further "forward" than you think. I don't have the reference handy at work, but the sights on bomber guns were calibrated so you know how much to trail the enemy fighter based on deflection angle, with a 90 degree deflection requiring 3 rads and a 0 degree deflection requiring 0 rads.
As for speed, using ground speed as a reference, yes, the bullet going out the tail gun has a lower velocity than a bullet from the nose, but then you have to figure the speed of the aircraft that's racing to meet it. Bomber speed of 400 fps, fighter converging at 500 fps.
Fire a bullet at 1000 fps. Relative to a fixed point the bullet is traveling at 600 fps. Relative to the bomber is is traveling at 1000 fps, relative to the poor schmuck behind the bomber the bullet is traveling at 1100 fps.
If that same fighter is in front of the bomber, with the same velocity, and you fire from the nose guns. Relative to the fixed point the bullet is moving at 1400 fps, relative to the bomber it is moving at 1000 fps, and relative to the fighter it's moving at 900 fps. Given the lower relative speed from the front it will take longer to traverse the same distance, increasing drop, drag, and stability decay.
HTH. HAND.
-
And in case anyone is realy interested how it is done in AH.
Vel.x = 0;
Vel.y = 0;
Vel.z = Weapon->WeaponClass->SimParams.InitialSpeed;
maROT_POINT(RotVel,Vel,HardPnt->Matrix);
maROT_POINT(Vel,RotVel,Weapon->Sim.CurrentAtt.Matrix);
|if(ParentObject != NULL)
|{
| if(ParentObject->Sim != NULL)
| {
| maINC_POINT(Vel,ParentObject->Sim->CurrentPos.Vel);
| }
| else
| {
| maINC_POINT(Vel,HardPnt->Vel);
| }
|}
|else
|{
| maINC_POINT(Vel,HardPnt->Vel);
|}
-
I get the feeling HT is tired of this discussion.
-several points for indentation errors.
-sever million points for...oh, wait, this ISN'T the monistary. Nevermind. :D
-
ermmm, my head hurts
-
Not a programmer so I'm not even gonna try and understand that Hitech, all I wanted was a straight yes or no to my question, not in any way saying AH is wrong in it, just wanna know if what I am saying is right or wrong.
The bullet should travel slower if fired at the opposit direction of the plane heading, isn't this right?
-
It'll travel slower..but not have as much resistence from air flow from going foward I think. Thats why it has greater range to the rear?
Its like when you initaly fire foward and your hitting 300+ then there is that sudden "wall" of air rushing INTO your plane so to speak....like walking into the wind, that the bullet must deal with. When you fire from the rear...they're is no such thing..or its effects are min anyway.
xBAT
-
Wilbus using your example . The bullet would be slower (700fps) in relation to the ground only, but it is still moving at 1000fps away from the gun that fired it . So yes it's actuall airspeed is slower, consequently it looses energy and speed at a slower rate, thus giving it a longer range than a bullet being fired foward . However to the p51 traveling 300fps chasing the b17 the bullet is still traveling 1000fps relative to the p51 . And will smack his plane with more energy than his 50cal bullets will strike the b17 .
Eskimo posted a more comprehensive explaination in the thread that I posted a link to, check it .
-
hehehe Seeker....that was a good movie :D
RASCAL
-
Rgr thanks, all I wanted to confirm, it does travel slower.
That it actually hits a plane harder then normal because all (almost) planes are going up fast from the rear is another thing.
-
Wilbus you might still be missing the point, even if the rear plane was not gaining on the buff i.e. the same speed, the bullet still hits harder.
And btw I did give you a straight answer before.
How about heading west at 700 fps relative to the ground.
If the 300 fps is relative to the ground and the 1000fps is relative to the gun.
-
Didn't mean to sound rude HT, I appologize if I did.
Didn't quite understand your direct answer before.
What I asked (I think) was not wether the bullet hit harder or not, just wether it was slower or not, and it is :)
Thanks for answering.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
What I asked (I think) was not wether the bullet hit harder or not, just wether it was slower or not, and it is :)
Thanks for answering.
Slower relative to what? :)
Everything depends on reference point, velocity more than most. Orbital mechanics can make you insane; the math is easy, keeping track of reference points can be a nightmare (particularly when you start doing trans-orbital stuff, and the reference point changes occasionally...)
-
So, anyway, HT, why do the buff guns have so much more range than fighter guns? Can you explain the difference in how you modeled them? Especially why you made the tailguns so uber?
"No! HT! Put down the axe! I was just funnin' ya! HELLLPP!"
:)
-
Whew! Now....what was that middle part again?:confused:
-
I think I figured something out, if the plane shooting at the B17 from 6 o'clock is going only a slight bit faster than the B17, the B17's bullets should do less damage, because the fps is less, right??????
-
no, because its still flying into the bullet, v + v
-
Wilbus..
Your obstinance cost us 1.5 developer hours on this game. Congrats.
(ht posts ant 1/40th) his codeing speed.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Vel.x = 0;
Vel.y = 0;
Vel.z = Weapon->WeaponClass->SimParams.InitialSpeed;
maROT_POINT(RotVel,Vel,HardPnt->Matrix);
maROT_POINT(Vel,RotVel,Weapon->Sim.CurrentAtt.Matrix);
|if(ParentObject != NULL)
|{
| if(ParentObject->Sim != NULL)
| {
| maINC_POINT(Vel,ParentObject->Sim->CurrentPos.Vel);
| }
| else
| {
| maINC_POINT(Vel,HardPnt->Vel);
| }
|}
|else
|{
| maINC_POINT(Vel,HardPnt->Vel);
|}
Huuh, does this mean AH is not programmed in Visual Basic???? :rolleyes: :D
-
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/vectors/U3L1b.html