Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Naudet on April 18, 2002, 02:47:04 AM
-
OK i got a nice video of the FW190, ad there was lots of gun camera footage from WW2. The gun camera was both from axis and allied birds.
And what i asked my self when looking at the film was: "Hey those real fighter jockeys really suck at shooting"
There were couple of instances, were the chasing fighter fired and fired for seconds while his traces passed behind the enemy all the time, and that at distances of 120 yrds or closer.
What is the reason for this huge discrepancy to AH, here we usually fire up to 400 yrds without a problem and the average pilots hit % is around 5-7%. Which is about 2-3 times as high as that in WW2 (according to a LW examination, were the average pilot hit % was just 2% against buffs).
And another notable thing was, that you could ony see hits fro cannons, cause they had explosive ordance. They gave hits similar to our hit sprites.
If a US fighter used his 0.5 cal, you could only see the tracers and than suddenly a part would come of its target or it starts smoking. But you never saw the actual hits.
And what i would also like to see is the corkscrew shape of the tracers. Looks funny.
-
Originally posted by Naudet
There were couple of instances, were the chasing fighter fired and fired for seconds while his traces passed behind the enemy all the time, and that at distances of 120 yrds or closer.
Hmmm.... can't see the difference between RL pilots and me :D
Naudet
-
I think the thing to remember here is how accurate you were before your 1st death. Most of the pilots in AH have died once of twice. (A luxury not afforded to your average fighter Jock in WWII). Doing it for real gave you one chance and one chance only. Once your Kill streak was ended by death you didn't get another chance to "Improve" on your gunnery.
TTFN
snafu
-
Basically because even "newbie" AH pilots have literally tens to hundreds of times the "combat hours" that real life pilots had, and veteran pilots have literally thousands of times the combat experience of even Eric Hartmann.
Remember in real life you didn't take off from a base and engage in combat within 5 minutes for hours and hours straight, having the luxury of getting shot down, dieing, and then being able to come back with all that experience intact. And then doing that 20-50 times a day.
For example there are many pilots in AH that have more combat kills in a single tour (a month) than Eric Hartmann had over the entire war.
Aerial gunnery is like any other type of gunnery. The more you do it, the better you are.
And we don't have that nasty permanent "death" penalty for screwing up that the real life pilots had.
-
<>
i've read a couple of times in interviews with Luftwaffe aces that tracers had a different trajectory to the other rounds loaded, and that they therefore did not use them to aim.
Ah, found a link to a site with an interview with Franz Stigler here : http://www.bf109.com/frameset.html
It may be that this was what you were seeing, or maybe it was just lousy deflection shooting, which does take awhile to learn.
-
Also, in AH we have nice laser sighting information down to the yard to tell us what distance we are at. No neon ranging icons in real life
-
This is a game.
In fairness, AH does a good job balancing gameplay with credible (ie believable) ballistics. Still, Ive always been of the opinion that guns in AH were too potent (ie lethal) but hey, Its fun and that will always be the bottom line.
-
As for the corkscrew tracers, out in the real world tracers don't fly the same path as the "real" bullets. You had to know the difference and aim accordingly; you didn't aim the tracers at the target...if you did all the rest of your shells would miss.
This was due to the phosphorus burning and the weight of the bullet changing in flight.
I rather like the way AH ignores that little factoid.
-
I'd add that at least those gun cam clips I've seen in the net are slow-motion films, so it may seems that they are shooting for several seconds while IRL it was only short burst.
-
Yup, most films you see are slow motion, not all though.
One thing is of course, as pointed out by most others in here, experience. We have far more flight hours then most of the R/L pilots did.
We have laser range icons, big red letters that says "here I am, shoot me please". Flew with them off in a snapshot once, both sides surviving pilots agreed to turning them off and so we did, WHEEEE, TONS more fun and you saw people miss alot more.
Don't know how good IL2 (yeah yeah comparing it again) gunnery is realism wise but when I fly it, it FEELS EXTREMELY realistic and much more real life like then AH's gunnery and dammage modell.
-
Real life pilots have something we dont though..
And that's training.
Maybe they didn't have combat experience, yet they could do training shots on targets quite a lot. Nobody got sent out to fight without some kind of training.
What comes to IL-2 gunnery, I can't really say anything about that since it's very hard to aim playing it.
The plane feels like you're balancing it on a ball bearing, any small adjustment tips the nose off track.. It only starts flying straight again if there's no control input at all. Only way to get a proper solution there seems to be hands off stick and hope the paths cross somewhere lol.
I don't know if that's realistic - I've heard that the fighter planes flew very steady and did not have the AoA wave all over the horizon after a small stick input.
-
From this thread: http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5824
Here's a way to play with this to get a quick ballpark feel of the differences. Use this ballistic calculator: http://internet.cybermesa.com/~jbm/.../traj/traj.html
In Tony Williams' book, Rapid Fire, there is a reprint of a trajectory chart for a Me 410. There are similar ones in a number of other books as well. Set up the same installation with regards to sightline, weapon offset, and zero range. Take the weight and muzzle velocity from that book and adjust BC to match trajectory. I'll make it easy for you.
Muzzle Velocity: 2592.0 ft/sec
Chronograph Distance: 0.000 feet
Ballistic Coefficient: 0.270
Drag Function: G1
Bullet Weight: 525 grains
Sight Height: 35.40 inches
Sight Offset: 0.00 inches
Wind Range Speed: 0 mph
Wind Vertical Speed: 0 mph
Wind Cross Speed: 0 mph
LOS Angle: 0 degrees
Cant Angle: 0 degrees
Target Speed: 0 mph
Target Angle: 90 degrees
Zero Range: 547 yards
Zero Height: 0 inches
Zero Offset: 0 inches
Temperature: 59.6 °F
Barometric Pressure: 29.92 in Hg
Relative Humidity: 0.0 %
Altitude: 0 feet
Air Density: 100 % of Sea Level
Copy off the results and do it again for the .50 fired from the same installation. I posted a velocity chart in the AC forum awhile back. You can use that to adjust BC to match the chart since bullet weight and MV are known.
Muzzle Velocity: 2845.0 ft/sec
Chronograph Distance: 0.000 feet
Ballistic Coefficient: 0.700
Drag Function: G1
Bullet Weight: 708 grains
Sight Height: 35.40 inches
Sight Offset: 0.00 inches
Wind Range Speed: 0 mph
Wind Vertical Speed: 0 mph
Wind Cross Speed: 0 mph
LOS Angle: 0 degrees
Cant Angle: 0 degrees
Target Speed: 0 mph
Target Angle: 90 degrees
Zero Range: 547 yards
Zero Height: 0 inches
Zero Offset: 0 inches
Temperature: 59.6 °F
Barometric Pressure: 29.92 in Hg
Relative Humidity: 0.0 %
Altitude: 0 feet
Air Density: 100 % of Sea Level
The results of this setup:
At 1000 yards, the .50 is pushing a 708 grain bullet at 1670 fps, generating 4382 ft-lbs of energy. It's taken 1.38 seconds to travel that distance and it's dropped 11.6 feet below the sightline.(I have an ammunition manual that gives a 1000 yard time of flight of 1.32 seconds with the 45" barrel. Using the same setup but plugging in the higher 2935 fps MV of the 45" barrel, I get 1.333 seconds at 1000 yards.)
At 1000 yards, the 131 is pushing a 525 grain bullet at 838 fps, generating 818 ft-lbs of energy. It's taken 2.37 seconds to travel that distance and it's dropped 42.6 feet below the sightline.
You can build a more precise model or quibble over the details, but that won't show the two rounds to be similar because they're not. 131 has better performance in AH than the above comparison anyway. A lot better
__________________
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
F.
-
I always thought the tracer corkscrew dance was from the gun camera getting shook to death from the vibration of the wing caused by the guns firing .... actually they were flying as straight as the rest of the rounds.
-
well the bullets are spining so a certain amount of cork screw smoke is acceptable..it would be sweet to see that much deatil in it....but so would all the damage models too(see the parachute come off the pilot as he bails out of his FW 190)...(have you guys seen that ??? It breaks your heart ):(.....The Movie is Called "No Easy Days -AERIAL DOG FIGHT CAMERA FOOTAGE WW2-..brutal-brutal- very brutal footage
I love progression..its getting better and bettr..U guys at HTC...thank you....This is my only Long term relationship at the moment...ill never cheat on you:)lololo
BGBMAW>>>>>>>>>>>1st Marine Air Wing
-
Originally posted by Eagler
I always thought the tracer corkscrew dance was from the gun camera getting shook to death from the vibration of the wing caused by the guns firing .... actually they were flying as straight as the rest of the rounds.
5.56mm and 50 cal tracers (the only ones I've seen first hand) fly straight, they just don't fly the same as all the ball rounds. You have to be able to correct for the odd flight path.
One 4th of July I loaded up a box of 5.56mm tracers at a friend's farm and we had a bit of a show. About gave his mother-in-law a fit; seems she still had nighmares about riding her bicycle in rural Germany and being strafed by allied aircraft. The sight of those tracers about did her in. Made me feel horrible.
-
not really relevant, but it looks cool
(http://flightsimmers.net/va/mrbd/storage/guncam/ZeroFive.gif)
-
Ben that is sweet ..where is that from?
BGBMAW
-
I just ordered "Gun Camera Footage from WWII" from Amazon. Ships in 1-3 weeks, $20US.
-
What comes to IL-2 gunnery, I can't really say anything about that since it's very hard to aim playing it.
The plane feels like you're balancing it on a ball bearing, any small adjustment tips the nose off track.. It only starts flying straight again if there's no control input at all. Only way to get a proper solution there seems to be hands off stick and hope the paths cross somewhere lol.
I don't know if that's realistic - I've heard that the fighter planes flew very steady and did not have the AoA wave all over the horizon after a small stick input.
They changed this in recent 1.04 patch. The 'nose bouncing' problems were caused from incorrect depiction of trim attitudes. Now, all planes in IL-2 are a better and stable gun platforms. At least the nose jerking up down up down difficulties are gone (But it still is hard to aim :) )
One funny thing is, though AH claims they don't use a 'hit box', it damn sure feels like there is one. I don't think I've ever seen something like two tracer lines, each passing the starboard and port side of the target plane's fuselage merely inches away. In IL-2, I see these things happening when you shoot at a target too close, but have your guns converged for further off. I see tracer lines passing very close to the aircraft, looking as if they almost grazed the paint job, but still a miss. Those cases which normally in AH I would see hit sprites lighting up, is a definate miss in IL-2.
The IL-2 community has its own batch of 'experienced pilots', too. But these guys, unlike the experienced pilots of AH, no matter how skilled they are, rarely can hit something outside 200 meters if it is moving around. The "more experience in gunnery than real life pilots" argument doesn't seem much valid when this little compariosn kicks into action.
Also, there are range indicators and icons in IL-2, too. Range indicators don't help people shoot at a 400 meter target in IL-2. It certainly doesn't help with me too, since the terrible gunner I am, I prefer to shoot at literally point blank range anyway. (The longest shot I ever confirmed I hit something was about 270 meters. Guns were converged at 150 meters, the target La-5FN was running away straight and level. Took a carfeful aim with maximum zoom on, plane trimmed out perfectly, and let go a 4 second stream with MG131s and saw metal scraps fall off)
Maybe it's the combat trims, or maybe it's the more stablility in the FM.. or maybe it's the difference between modelling trajectories of bullets... or.. maybe it's the damage modelling that makes AH gunnery so different from IL-2. One thing I am certain, IL-2 gunnery makes more sense to me. AH is not bad, but in the aspect of gunnery... simply, IL-2 is better.
-
I wouldn't want to be in these planes for real, it wouldn't be fun at all. Sure it's easy with a joystick, but when hot lead is whizzing by you. I think some TP would be needed upon landing.
Jay
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
The IL-2 community has its own batch of 'experienced pilots', too. But these guys, unlike the experienced pilots of AH, no matter how skilled they are, rarely can hit something outside 200 meters if it is moving around. The "more experience in gunnery than real life pilots" argument doesn't seem much valid when this little compariosn kicks into action...
...AH is not bad, but in the aspect of gunnery... simply, IL-2 is better.
I'll play the Devil's Advocate here. :)
If "highly experienced virtual game pilots"
1. Don't get any better as they practice more
2. Can't regularly hit anything outside of 200 meters
3. Already have probably fired literally millions more rounds at "moving targets" than the quickly trained pilots of WW2.....
then it may not be the "experience" argument at all. It may be that the gunnery model isn't that true to life.
I know you hate to hear that, but it is nevertheless a possibility. A possibility just as likely as your assumption, IMO. :)
200 meters is 656 feet. The MV of the .50 is ~2850 fps so time of flight is something like .2 of a second. Assume both aircraft are about the same speed so that relative velocity is essentially the same. No one is going to maneuver a WW2 fighter very far in .2 of a second.
Just something to consider. I think the millions of rounds of practice make a BIG difference, BTW. I consider myself a fairly decent hand with a shotgun on skeet or trap.. I may even fire one or two thousand rounds a year (some years) at clay targets or game. When I go up against guys that fire a few thousand rounds at clay every weekend... I get slaughtered. Go figure.
Lastly, your final sentence as quoted above appears to be nothing more than opinion.
Do you have anything to base it on? Flown any piston engine WW2 era aircraft? Shot at much of anything? Shot machine guns at anything? Inquiring minds would like to know. :)
-
As far as the realism goes, it's kinda hard to be completely REAL. When i fly i got my comfortable leather chair, 12oz.beer,a pack of smokes,and a itch to kill. Thoses R/L rookie ,and perhaps veteran pilots had knots in the stomachs, thier lifes on the line,and scared sh*tless. If you want to get real REAL i guess make it where your pilot has a .45 or 9mm, depending on what plane your flying. That way when you are out of ammo or getting shot down, you can pull open the canopy and shoot and the other plane in a last ditch effort.(or on the ground as well):D
-
I must be crazy because I find gunnery in Il-2 to be very similar to AH. The big difference is that it's much harder in Il-2 to see where your fire is going and to see if you are hitting or not. After a dozen or so dogfights in Il-2 I found myself scoring in much the same manner as I do in AH.
Of course Il-2 has more eye candy for the bullets in flight and the damage to the enemy. But I don't think the modeling of the bullet trajectories or hit detection is much different at all from AH.
-
Originally posted by Puck
I just ordered "Gun Camera Footage from WWII" from Amazon. Ships in 1-3 weeks, $20US.
Then you probably read my review :)
I popped my copy into the VCR a couple of weeks ago, and then I was flipping through a magazine and saw an ad for Aces High, with a coupon for an extra week of free play online. And now, here I am!
I wish I could find more of this sort of video...
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
Ben that is sweet ..where is that from?
BGBMAW
found it when searching for 'ww2 gun cam' with yahoo
but look how easy that zero catches fire!!
one thing i hate about gun cam clips you find thou, it never tells you the plane thats firing
-
Originally posted by Naudet
OK i got a nice video of the FW190, ad there was lots of gun camera footage from WW2. The gun camera was both from axis and allied birds.
What was the title of this film, where did you get it, and can I buy one, too?
Originally posted by Naudet
And what i asked my self when looking at the film was: "Hey those real fighter jockeys really suck at shooting"
That's because they had to deal with tougher physics than we do :)
Originally posted by Naudet
There were couple of instances, were the chasing fighter fired and fired for seconds while his traces passed behind the enemy all the time, and that at distances of 120 yrds or closer.
Sounds like hi-G shooting to me, where both planes are turning so hard that the bullets are going out and dropping down below the nose of the airplane. Either that or he burned out the gun barrels with all of the continuous firing and the bullets were getting mis-shapen into hunks of slag lead.
Originally posted by Naudet
What is the reason for this huge discrepancy to AH, here we usually fire up to 400 yrds without a problem and the average pilots hit % is around 5-7%. Which is about 2-3 times as high as that in WW2 (according to a LW examination, were the average pilot hit % was just 2% against buffs).
AH has good physics, probably the best on the market, but it still ain't reality (thankfully). And we also don't have to deal with gun jams, either!
Originally posted by Naudet
And another notable thing was, that you could ony see hits fro cannons, cause they had explosive ordance. They gave hits similar to our hit sprites.
If a US fighter used his 0.5 cal, you could only see the tracers and than suddenly a part would come of its target or it starts smoking. But you never saw the actual hits.
It depends on what's loaded in the gun. Tracer rounds didn't spark on impact, but armour-piercing-incindiary (API) did. Plenty of Allied planes used the API later in the war.
Originally posted by Naudet
And what i would also like to see is the corkscrew shape of the tracers. Looks funny.
Some of that effect comes from the camera vibrating in the wing, and the wing vibrating on the fuselage, and the fuselage vibrating from the engine running and machine guns firing. It seems like a lot of that was more prevalent in the early parts of the war than in the later parts, at least as far as US aircraft gun cameras are concerned. In Germany, it may have been the opposite way as the war took its toll on resources.
-
Originally posted by gofaster
AH has good physics, probably the best on the market, but it still ain't reality (thankfully). And we also don't have to deal with gun jams, either!
HTC.............;)
lets model this so s n p'ers don't take my tail off at 700+
:p
-
Originally posted by BenDover
not really relevant, but it looks cool
(http://flightsimmers.net/va/mrbd/storage/guncam/ZeroFive.gif)
If I'm not mistaken, that clip is of a CFS2 Zero getting drilled by a P-38, right?
-
Originally posted by gofaster
I wish I could find more of this sort of video...
http://www.accu-flight.com/freie_jagd.avi
-
Originally posted by gofaster
If I'm not mistaken, that clip is of a CFS2 Zero getting drilled by a P-38, right?
you are mistaken, that is real life gun cam
have a few more on my webspace, any1 want links?
-
Here you can see the video, its on the german Amazon site, but its a UK import
FW190 video (http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00004TXC0/qid=1019302309/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_0_1/302-2909759-3036056)
And i think the corkscrew tracers are from the rotating bullets. Cause the tracer smoke will get wirled around, cause of the rotation.
-
I would like to weigh in on this one. HTC has the guns right. Are they realistic? Who knows? But they are right for the Internet. I had a nice forty kill sorti reacently. What was interesting about this, was one of the guys I was fighting. Every time I shot him down, it took 3 times as much ammo as any of the others. No I don't think he was cheating. I have run into him in other arenas and it always takes 3 times as much ammo. Packet loss. Period. He must be on aol are something.
Anyway, the point is, the sim builders have to error in one direction or another. Packet loss would turn absolutely real gunnery into a bad joke, in a split second. So this begs the question. Is real, really, real. It is not possible on the Internet. If the guns are bumped up (and I have no reason to think so. BTW) it is an error in the right direction. The only option is an error in the direction of intermittently weak guns. Gang bangers have all the advantages to begin with. Removing your ability to finish the first guy quick, and then meet the oncoming threat. Pretty much turns the game into a gang bang is all there is game. (can you say WB).
-
easymo first of all if this guy takes 3x ammo consistently to die - it's no longer a random problem but probably something deliberate. No service provider remains conveniently porked for weeks.
Secondly, AH has become a big gangbang arena lately. At my timezone the odds are so lopsided that it's generally not appealing to try to stop field takes etc. anymore.
When odds are impossible any resistance is futile - MA is a borg universe with 20 player missions raiding fields protected by 2-3 tired fighters.
Flame away, that's how it is and I have no problems providing proof because I can say for sure it happens even now as I type, without even logging to the game.
Edit: Just for fun I logged on and saw the situation - fresh from reset naturally and generally what I expected to see:
(http://users.kymp.net/cable130/balance.jpg)
-
Oops, forgot to mention. This was in 8 player. Main arena is far more stable. The principle is exactly the same though.
-
...havent just about all the online sims used a counter/range finder similar? ('cept WWIIOL).. not REAL sure on WB, but AW had the counter as well, I believe FA3 does too, oh & the fun but short lived Desert Fighters demo :D ...kinda new to postin on these boards, but still not sure how the counter is that big an issue...:confused:
-
you are mistaken, that is real life gun cam
Gofaster is right, it's from CFS2 ;)
-
Either that or CFS2 has very realistic effects :)
Yeah looks awfully familiar to cfs2 to me too.
-
hmm, the more i look at it, the more it does look like a game, damn bull toejamting site!
how about this one?
(http://flightsimmers.net/va/mrbd/storage/guncam/Me262One.gif)
-
Originally posted by Naudet
Here you can see the video, its on the german Amazon site, but its a UK import
FW190 video (http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00004TXC0/qid=1019302309/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_0_1/302-2909759-3036056)
And i think the corkscrew tracers are from the rotating bullets. Cause the tracer smoke will get wirled around, cause of the rotation.
how do you view the clip?
-
Originally posted by BenDover
hmm, the more i look at it, the more it does look like a game, damn bull toejamting site!
how about this one?
(http://flightsimmers.net/va/mrbd/storage/guncam/Me262One.gif)
That one with the Me262 is real. Look at the smoke and the way the plane fuzzes out as the camera gets closer - that's an effect of how the lens was fixed-focus for long-distance.
The CFS2 clip was given away by (a) the debris effect as parts fall off, (b) the undecipherable generic terrain, and (c) the fire as the tail fell off - seen it many times as I go after the drone Zeroes in my Corsair. Still, its a great clip!
-
AND: (d) the wire antenna, that doesn't lose the shape after losing one of the two supports :D
-
Originally posted by gofaster
That one with the Me262 is real. Look at the smoke and the way the plane fuzzes out as the camera gets closer - that's an effect of how the lens was fixed-focus for long-distance.
The CFS2 clip was given away by (a) the debris effect as parts fall off, (b) the undecipherable generic terrain, and (c) the fire as the tail fell off - seen it many times as I go after the drone Zeroes in my Corsair. Still, its a great clip!
Yea sure both the clip are real,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,come on,give my brain a chance:rolleyes:
-
I have been wondering about something. Does AH have slugs between the tracers like in real life? Every tracer was every fifth or tenth round.
Falcon
-
how do you view the clip?
you have to buy it, no way to see it online, with "see" i did not mean you can view it online