Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: RRAM on July 13, 2002, 10:15:43 AM
-
Heya :)
As an expert in this matter I think you're the one to be asked this kind of question.
First of all please download this film:
http://81.19.238.131/demo/clip0001.mpg
Its 22 Meg. A bit big but well worth the download.
Now the questions; I think is pretty evident. In that film me see lots of air to air fights, and air to air firing. I think is plain to see the enormous difficulty of hitting with the weapons both from pure 6 positions, and from deflection shooting.
Also there are several PURE six attacks on buff BOXES (so the argument of the bomber having positions kicked out is not appliable, because there are lots of bombers) both from 190s and 110s in that film. THe planes seemed to get out of those attacks quite OK.
The contrast in what that film shows and what AH portrays as air to air gunnery is, I'd say, quite significant. The planes in AH Seem way too stable in contrast of what I see in those films. Also, here to hit seems much easier than in that film.
So the questions are simple:
1- do you think that AH has -in your opinion- an accurate simulation of air-to-air gunnery in World War two?.
2- do you find bomber gunnery in AH near what could be expected from a WWII bomber?
P.S. those are honest questions more related with true knowledge of WWII air to air combat than with AH itself. I use just use AH as comparison.
Thanks in advance :)
-
RAM:
Tony doesn't fly AH.
Hooligan
-
How difficult can it really be to hit Ram..
we both know of German pilots that got kills with less then 10 rounds of 151/20 ammo... consistantly.
I bet their gun films look alot different then those films.
Also the bombers that were really being honed in on in those films where mostly alone. they had likly allready been hit and seperated from the formation and likley their tail and ball gunners where dead when the film started.
Sitting right in the wake of a big bomber sure seems to bounce the 110s arround alot but not the 190s as much.
The long turning fight with the P47 was a great endorsement of the shooting in AH. It looked just like a flat fight in AH looks. and the hit looked just like a solid hit in AH looks. I bet the effect was the same too.
Thanks for some great footage that endorses the gunnery model in AH!
-
well some 1 before tryed with some funy math formule persuade buf guns eficienty like sped of the bulets and plane speed, well then just think what diference on aiming wil have 1 mm nose elevation at 100 m distance ? :D or even beter at 800 m distance , the 50 calibers just like snipe :mad:
planes in AH have some nose bounce , but it daz not give the vibration feling of real plane , yes plane can fly realy straith at wery wery high spends but event there not for long time , maybe 10 sec no more, i know many people cant even withstand wind layers so i imagine the whine if prop wash , bufeting ,turbulences and portance parasites modeled :D but i realy wish them 1 day to see !!!!!
definitely buff guns need some rework , not becose i got be kiled with them
, actualy not see buf last month in AH :( ,but becose it will be more realistic also wish tune down dramaticly Typhon performances , they jsut fly to well to high same for La 7
typhie was used with suxces on ground atack , but mostly with rocket and why they was sucesful ?? becose of speed to have some chance evade DCA and AAA fire !
-
Originally posted by minus
tune down dramaticly Typhon performances , they jsut fly to well to high same for La 7
typhie was used with suxces on ground atack , but mostly with rocket and why they was sucesful ?? becose of speed to have some chance evade DCA and AAA fire !
I must to agree with you, cant understand the typh performance in this game. Excelent turner, excelent climber, more excelent zoom climber, why was it supposed to be only good as an attack plane? Which engine and weight have our typh version?
-
agree with what? Is he saying that the typhoon is overmodeled?
-
He got shot down by Vulcan tonight
-
As Hooligan said, I don't fly AH (or any other sims). What's worse, my internet link is steam-powered and won't take more than 1 meg.
However, I can make a few general comments about the accuracy of shooting in WW2.
First, most pilots never hit anything, and about 90% of kills were made by 10% of pilots. Pilot skill was paramount.
Second, before the introduction of the gyro gunsight, deflection shooting was mainly a waste of ammo except by aces of exceptional ability. I have read a contemporary RAF document dated 1942 which stated that most fighter pilots didn't even bother trying a deflection shot against a Bf 109, the chance of a hit was so low.
Third, even if you believe the shoot-down figures claimed by B-17 and B-24 gunners (which are known to be wildly overstated) they still took ten times as much ammo to shoot down each claim than the fighter boys did.
That said, it's fair to say that the constant practice which modern sim-players get probably makes their skills much better than most WW2 pilots. OTOH, no sim can replicate the pure terror of real combat, which was bound to have an effect on shooting accuracy.
Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/
-
Just finished George Beurling's autobiography _Malta Spitfire_. 'Screwball' (a word, BTW, that does not appear in the book). He was very proud of his deflection shooting ability and made a special comment on every kill that made w/ a deflection shot. I doubt he would have done that if it was commonplace. He also suggested that while other were out carousing he was doing bookwork figuring out the principles of deflection shooting. To me this implies that, at least in the RAF (which always seemed to be a bit behind in adaping to new situations), deflection shooting was not taught, or was not emphasized and anyone who could do it well was considered [insert superlative of choice]
-
vatiAH, you may look to the stats, it is not a matter of kills or deaths, its a matter of performance. I find our Typh far better fighter than our P51D or any P47.
-
Deflection shooting certainly was taught in the RAF; I have lots of notes of guidance for pilots on exactly that. The problem was that most people's judgment tended to be poor, especially under the stress of combat. The bit of advice that sticks in my mind had a somewhat despairing tone: "the enemy aircraft is always twice as far away as you think it is, and in deflection shooting you need to aim twice as far ahead as you believe is necessary"!
Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/
-
I'm not Mr. Williams, but I'll answer the first question anyway. :)
Originally posted by RRAM
1- do you think that AH has -in your opinion- an accurate simulation of air-to-air gunnery in World War two?.
In a word: no.
Imho, so far the best simulation of WW2 A2A gunnery is in IL-2. SDOE is pretty good too. In those games you have to hit the actual polygons of the plane to score a hit. Shooting at ranges above a couple of hundred yards is pretty much a waste of ammo. To me it seems clear that AH has hit bubbles.
That said, I do believe that hit bubbles in AH are ok. They provide better gameplay, here you can actually hit something. Anyone who has tried IL2 knows how frustrating it can be when you just waste your ammo, shooting at point blank range without hitting...
Camo
-
Originally posted by LLv34_Camouflage
Anyone who has tried IL2 knows how frustrating it can be when you just waste your ammo
And how rewarding is to shoot with IL2 and hit and destroy something. Me, personally, enjoyed X vs Tie Fighter a lot, but this is something I dont expect from any flight simulator.
-
Aout the hit bubbles.. I recall hearing from this baord that AH does not have a hit bubble, and in effect principle it would be the same as the way modelled in IL-2.
I've tried some simple tests on how accurate this could be.. and there are some things I've tried that I was never ever able to do in AH:
1) Getting tracer rounds fly between the elevator and the wings from direct 6oc angle
2) Getting the tracer rounds fly by each side of the vertical stabilizer
3) Getting the tracer rounds fly by each side of the wings
4) Getting the tracer rounds fly through the space between the fuselage and the booms on the P-38L
....
In the case of IL-2, I've seen and done all of the above (except number 4). Tracers flying past very narrow spaces.... the unlucky 'near miss'es passing by the plane almost as if grazing the surface... wing armed planes shooting at inadequate convergence ranges and seeing the tracer rounds pass by each side of the vertical stabs..
I don't ever recall seeing those sorts of things in AH. I've never had wing-armed planes having problems in hitting the target out of convergence range.. and can't really notice the advantage of center-line armed weapons too.
Of course, those 4 tests I've tried are things that need skill to do, and I'm afraid the reason I couldn't do it might be because I lack those skills. I'd be interested what the results are if some of the better pilots try it.
-
Originally posted by whgates3
Just finished George Beurling's autobiography _Malta Spitfire_. 'Screwball' (a word, BTW, that does not appear in the book). He was very proud of his deflection shooting ability and made a special comment on every kill that made w/ a deflection shot. I doubt he would have done that if it was commonplace. He also suggested that while other were out carousing he was doing bookwork figuring out the principles of deflection shooting. To me this implies that, at least in the RAF (which always seemed to be a bit behind in adaping to new situations), deflection shooting was not taught, or was not emphasized and anyone who could do it well was considered [insert superlative of choice]
It was not common place. Most aces accounts you read have in them the revelation when the pilot learned to deflection shoot.
But those films have no mention of who the pilot was. The top german aces could shoot alot better then that.
-
Great film. It seemed to me that more of what I didn't like in IL-2 is pry right. I'm thinking it was a real sumsqueak to hit anything, and when you did they were tougher than I'd expect at least.
And I also agree that the B17 gunners were dead or shatting themselves so bad they couldn't fire or aim which would stand to reason. AH also allows a very liberal zoom view for the gunners, and that would be a suicide 6 attack on a buff in the game, but they seemed common in those clips.
-
Most of the guys that tried that dead 6 attack scheme didnt return with film I bet.
-
THanks everyone for your input! :) I didn't know Aces high portrayed "hit bubbles" for damage modelling. Is quite dissapointing imo, but I guess it will stay that way :).
Originally posted by Pongo
Most of the guys that tried that dead 6 attack scheme didnt return with film I bet.
Yah. I guess most of them didn't return home, So the rest of the guys were short-minded and kept on doing that kind of attach scheme anyway, no matter they were 95% dead if they did it, huh? ;). (in AH that aproach against any buff means 95% probability of dying)
of course. Germans were so stupid :D
P.S. Many of the shots against bombers are taken with bombers in BOXES. Maybe the targetted buff's gunners were death, but the ones in the rest of the buffs too? ;).
-
*sigh* Camo please, please..... until you have some proof, stop stating that AH has hit bubbles as if its a fact. Thats how these silly bellybutton rumors and myths start.
AH DOES NOT HAVE HIT BUBBLES
In a hit bubble damage system, imagine a 360 degree "bubble" the size of the wingspan of the aircraft all around the plane. If you hit that, you get a hit on the aircraft.
Its simple to test. Go out and fire at an aircraft approximately one half a wings distance above the wing. If you see hit flashes, AH has a hit bubble. If you don't see flashes (which you won't) AH does not have a hit bubble.
In AH you have to hit the polygons of the aircraft.
If you have film or screenshots showing the existence of a hit bubble, just post them, otherwise let it go. Its really really simple to test.
-
"Its simple to test. Go out and fire at an aircraft approximately one half a wings distance above the wing. If you see hit flashes, AH has a hit bubble. If you don't see flashes (which you won't) AH does not have a hit bubble."
If I understand you correctly this would only be true if we are talking about hit bubbles that are pure circles. If hit bubbles are really being used it would make more sense to give them a much more elliptical shape, to fit closer to the aircrafts part. (wing, rudder, etc.)
This is how it is done in EAW's hit bubble system.
__________________
Ltn. Snefens
Lentolaivue 34 (http://www.muodos.fi/LLv34)
My AH homepage (http://home14.inet.tele.dk/snefens/index2.htm)
(http://home14.inet.tele.dk/snefens/209.gif)
-
Here is a pic from off-line mode. Dead six attack on the p51, with nose MG's of the Emil. One would expect that the center of the hit-sprites would center at the point of impact, which makes at least one of the hits seem a bit "generous".
It doesn't necesarily have to mean that hit bubbles are being used. It could instead be some sort of proximity check (bullet gets within x distance of a polygon, give a hit to that section), or maybe the actual rounds that are given a larger size (tennisballs).
Yet another explaination could be that the hitsprites are wrongfully drawn, and not a 100% accurate way to show the impact. When I was slowing the film down to take this pic, it felt as if the hit sprites where being "quantumnized". As if there only was a certain number of places the hitsprites could be drawn.
Easist way to know for sure off course would be if one of HTC's staff would answer. :)
-
I find Snefens pic quite compelling - seen that several times, especially while shooting with MG (well, cannon blow the parts too quickly). Plus sometimes there are strange damage effects like radiator hits from dead 6 which could not be with a real polygon/structure hit system.
Snefens, what you describe as proximity check equals a (narrow) hit bubble on a section.
Maybe coming off topic but another thing with the dmg system is its on/off algorhythm. Either wing unharmed or (half) wing blown off - either engine going flawless or ded. Doesn't look like AH calculates how much dmg does a bullet/shell on impact or on its way through the plane section but more like a table like system where AH registered how many hits scored on a section (bubble) and flags it damaged if a certain number (of course different numbers for different calibers) has been reached.
Either way long range gunnery seems far to easy in AH. Yah, I know all the we-are-all-aces-better-trained-than-any-real-pilot comments - but still!
-
Sturmgruppen (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/neilpage/homepage.html)
This site is down but during the Big week Scenario I posted numerous quotes of pilot accounts on how the Sturmgruppen flew right up the arse of b17 formations.
If I recall correctly one pilot stated at a certain distance from the bomber pulk it was like running around in the shower trying not to get wet. The closer he got to a specific b17 the harder it was for the pulk to train its guns on the Sturmjaeger. He then killed the a tail gunner in a b17 from 6 with 20mm and pumped 6 - 10 rounds of 3cm into the right inboard eng of a b17. He described it as "devastating" with huge sheets of medal exploding off the wing. He said the b17s right wing dropped then buckled before entering a spiral. He then killed another in a similar fashion. There was even frame by frame images from a 190 guncamera showing the damage.
Ths Big week forum has been deleted and the above site has been taken down. But there were numerous accounts and I have read tons where the sturmjaegers went into from 6 or near 6.
On this same page it stated that 3 190s were lost for every 1 b17. This was late in the war but almost all were lost due to escort fighters. B17 gunners in real life no matter how much they trained or were tested could never track a 350mph+ fighter across the sky and hit him at ranges over 1000 yards.
The buff guns in ah have no shake or vibration. The gunners arent rattled about by the guns, they arent freezing, they arent afraid. Buff gun accuracy is a result of this.
Ofcourse gunnery in AH is no way "realistic". The problem is "do you want a sim that has realistic physics" or "do you want a sim that gives you realistic results?" In rl 50 cals can hit and kill at long ranges and they are modelled that way in ah and from the data provided it seems they are right.
But being sniped from ranges 1000 yards to 1600 yards is far from realistic.
What we have with ah buff guns is a gameplay concession. Anyone ever shoot a plane down in il2 while manning a tail gun? or even get good hits?
Heres a view of a typical Gefechtsverband from the tail gun of a bomber.
-
I guarentee you, if you had a formation like that attacking any sized b17 formation in AH, you'd have a lot of burning bombers. it's easy to train on one target, and kill it, but more than one quickly becomes difficult to deal with.
-
That said, it's fair to say that the constant practice which modern sim-players get probably makes their skills much better than most WW2 pilots. OTOH, no sim can replicate the pure terror of real combat, which was bound to have an effect on shooting accuracy.
Given that, IRL, if you survived your first major mistake in air-to-air combat you were extremely lucky, it's easy to see why sim players are so much better at certain things. To start with, you've got a much less physically-demanding environment -- you're not getting rammed down into your seat pulling Gs -- which lets you pay more attention to what you're doing. Second, you can keep making mistakes over and over again until you get it right.
Take attacking bombers. When you can go up dozens of times in an evening and attack bombers, you're getting feedback in a way that RL pilots could never expect to get. Eventually, through sheer trial-and-error, you're going to figure out the best way to do it. RL pilots either get a good approximation of it right the first time, or don't get a second try -- much less a third, fourth, fifteenth, thirtieth, or fiftieth.
It's kind of like going out and getting beat up until you learn how to fight, except that there are no personal consequences for losing. And it's that lack that makes learning that way practical; it doesn't matter how many times you lose, as long as you learn eventually. And that's going to distort the game.
-
BAH, sure you can replicate the terror of flying in the real world.
Rig up some explosives to a random timer(1-5 seconds), when you die, start the timer, run, if you're still able to fly after that you can keep playing!
-
Well, yeah, but that's going to really hose the player base for the game; you're not going to be able to recover your development costs that way.
-
ram...if we post a film of a 190 losing a wing and spinning out of control due to buff defensive guns does that then disprove your contention?
1100 yard buff guns would not work in ww2. even with the box of bombers. But neither did 800 yard interceptor shots..
Of the multitude of factors that effect air to air gunnery and damage, HT models the ones that he could think of, prove and implement in code. Some combination of the ones that he did not implement leaves us with very long range shooting by ww2 standards. But in the absence of those missing factors what do we do? Arbitrary 500 yard max range...so people only have to seperate x yards and the know they are scott free?
some people would find that very frustrating. allthough it would likely be more realistic then what we have.
-
even in them films how do you think the tail gunner was killed or disabled? Hos? that only hsppens in ah :)
-
Originally posted by Vermillion
*sigh* Camo please, please..... until you have some proof, stop stating that AH has hit bubbles as if its a fact. Thats how these silly bellybutton rumors and myths start.
You're right, I don't have any "real" proof that there would be hit bubbles in AH. No-one other than HTC knows, I assume? I'm sorry if I'm causing public restlessness with my comments. :)
I've done my share of offline gunnery, and like Snef said, the hits seem generous. It seems a bit odd to me that gunnery, especially at long ranges, is so much easier here than in IL2 and SDOE. These 2 sims definately don't have hit bubbles and the gunnery is very difficult. The FMs of IL2 and SDOE are more twitchy than in AH, however, which makes aiming more difficult. This might partly explain the problem.
Doing gunnery tests with tracers on would probably show how close a bullet can pass to the surface of the plane without hitting. I remember when IL2 first came out, I was amazed to see the tracers whizzing around the enemy, from both sizes of the fuselage, without hitting.
Camo
-
HTC have said on a number of occasions that AH does not use hit-bubbles
e.g.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54067&highlight=hit+bubbles
-
elipsoids (assuming it is not one big sphere for a hit bubble) are a huge pain in the 'neck' [ ;-) he winks knowingly - nudge, nudge - say no more] - plane geometry is much easier. i'll bet the spit's wings are modeled as a series of polygons
-
elipsoids (assuming it is not one big sphere for a hit bubble) are a huge pain in the 'neck' [ ;-) he winks knowingly - nudge, nudge - say no more] - plane geometry is much easier. i'll bet the spit's wings are modeled as a series of polygons
Polyhedrons, more likely. If you break an aircraft into a small number of subobjects that each have their own boundingbox -- i.e., the wings, horizontal stab, vertical stab, fuselage, any engine nacelles -- the intersection of the flight path of the projectile and a boundingbox is computationally cheap; only if the boundingbox collision is true is the collision checked against the actual shape.
-
Great footage!! My only question is how many a/c got taken out or damaged due to debris from parts coming off the plane they were shooting at??
You see in one flim that the pilot had to make a quick yank ont he stick to miss some debris coming at him..
Just wondering...
-
The term "hit bubble" comes from the original AW, and was the method used in AW up until its very end in RR, and only changed to the plane shape itself in FR in the last few years. I have no idea how the guys in EAW used it, since it was not a persistent universe multiplayer universe. But the term itself comes from AW. And as I said it was 360 degree sphere defined by the largest area of the plane, which was usually the wingspan. I can guarantee you that AH does not use that method.
Shiva, describes how I would guess that AH does its hit computations. Its computationally cheap, and can mimic the plane shape very well.
Just because IL2 and SDOE is harder does not make it correct.
They obviously followed the philosophy of "the average WWII pilot could only hit out to XXX yards, so we will add factors to gunnery to limit effectiveness out to XXX yards, no matter what the actual skill of the player is". AH followed the philosophy of "we know the physics variables of A, B, C, and D effect air to air gunnery, we model these to the best of our ability, and the gunnery goes from there".
Both methods have shortfalls, and weaknesses. Neither is absolutely correct. Take your pick of which you prefer, and stick with that game.
But just like with icons, just because "no icons" is harder, does not make it more accurately reflect air to air combat than "arena icons".
In either case, computers are trying to mimic a chaotic and dynamic system, with a simplistic set of assumptions.
But just because its harder, doesn't make it right.
-
They obviously followed the philosophy of "the average WWII pilot could only hit out to XXX yards, so we will add factors to gunnery to limit effectiveness out to XXX yards, no matter what the actual skill of the player is
Really?
Please explain this in detail. The obvious eludes me.
-
It eludes me, too, and very strange since some people like funkedup claim that they can land spontaneous hits from same ranges as AH(and not in just shooting at a straight and level opponent, but in combat situations). How does "the average WWII pilot could only hit out to XXX yards, so we will add factors to gunnery to limit effectiveness out to XXX yards, no matter what the actual skill of the player is" apply to funked?
.....
.. besides, even if what you say is true, isn't there a possibility that those 'factors' are actually the more appropriate ones in depicting gunnery? If there is one set of gunnery factors which allows most people to comfortably land hits at 400~500 meters no matter the skill, and another set of factors which won't allow people to land hits at that range, for a game intended to depict WWII conditions my choice would obviously go to the latter one.
-
Originally posted by Vermillion
The term "hit bubble" comes from the original AW, and was the method used in AW up until its very end in RR, and only changed to the plane shape itself in FR in the last few years. I have no idea how the guys in EAW used it, since it was not a persistent universe multiplayer universe. But the term itself comes from AW. And as I said it was 360 degree sphere defined by the largest area of the plane, which was usually the wingspan. I can guarantee you that AH does not use that method.
The term "hit bubble" was misleading. Sorry. :) Hit box is a better term. I attached a picture of what I meant.
Of course each sim has a hit box. The size of the hit box is what I'm worried about. In IL2 and SDOE, the hit boxes are very close to the size and shape of the actual polygons of the plane. This makes the gunnery less "generous".
Camo
-
Exactly, that is the way it was programmed in CFS. Planes were represented by set of boxes to tulips whether bullets hit the plane. Would like to know whether this also the case in AH. It explanes 'hit's like Snefens picture is showing.
Does anybody have figures on gun dispersion of guns used in WWII planes?? Would like to compare those with the ones in AH (.target ####). It seems to me that the dispersion in IL-2 is much bigger than in AH.
One thing that always strikes me when looking at films like the one posted by RAM, is that the dispersion is huge (looking at the tracers). It doesn't look like that in AH.
-
Hi Apar,
>Does anybody have figures on gun dispersion of guns used in WWII planes??
Junkers instructions for harmonizing the MG151/20 cannon of the Ju 87D-5 stated that the weapon dispersion radius was 0.25% of the range.
That means that at 500 m, all of your hits should strike within a 2.5 m circle.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
They obviously followed the philosophy of "the average WWII pilot could only hit out to XXX yards, so we will add factors to gunnery to limit effectiveness out to XXX yards, no matter what the actual skill of the player is
I'm going by the descriptions of IL2 gunnery that are in this thread and others I've read. Where you all explicitly state that its almost impossible to score hits unless your within 300 yards, and certainly within less than 500. And the proponents of this gunnery system use this as proof that its a better system, because of the descriptions of WWII gunnery they read are consistent with the game, regardless of the difference between real pilots and virtual pilots (but these same people ignore descriptions that contradict their point).
But one common method of doing this is to simply make the FE stop tracking the round after going a certain distance. Literally the bullets "disappear" after going XXX yards. But there are others as well.
-
Originally posted by Vermillion
I'm going by the descriptions of IL2 gunnery that are in this thread and others I've read. Where you all explicitly state that its almost impossible to score hits unless your within 300 yards, and certainly within less than 500. And the proponents of this gunnery system use this as proof that its a better system, because of the descriptions of WWII gunnery they read are consistent with the game, regardless of the difference between real pilots and virtual pilots (but these same people ignore descriptions that contradict their point).
I don't believe that there would be an "artificial" limit to gunnery in IL2 or SDOE. Like Hitech has said, "you can't argue with physics".
I believe that the ballistics and actual physics are modelled correctly in these three sims, AH, SDOE and IL2. Of course, there are differences in accuracy, but for a WW2 flight sim they are all adequate.
As I've said, in my opinion, the issue is with the size of the hit boxes, or maybe the size of the bullet (tennis ball theory). The end result is pretty much the same in either case. And for an online sim, its perfectly fine: its a gameplay issue.
I've never said its impossible to hit at long ranges in SDOE or IL2. I'm saying its a hell of a lot harder than in AH. Even gunnery at short ranges is a hell of a lot harder. I just made some experiments, flying behind a Pe2, trying to get near misses with the 7.9mms of the 109 G-2, keeping time compression at 1/4 for better accuracy.
Attached is an IL2 screenshot compilation showing a near miss from 60m range. Its a slight left turn, with maybe 10 degree deflection. I tried to keep the gunsight just left of the cockpit. As you can see from the tracer, the bullets passed right of the rudder, above the elevator. The right side machine gun bullet went into the cockpit, the left side mg bullet barely missed, as you can see. It would be nice to see if that can be done in AH as well, with the tracers on.
But one common method of doing this is to simply make the FE stop tracking the round after going a certain distance. Literally the bullets "disappear" after going XXX yards. But there are others as well. [/B]
In real life, the cannon rounds of MG151/20 self-detonated at around 750m to 1.5km range. WW2OL models this. The MG151/20 tracer rounds in IL2 fly well beyond 1km.
Lobbing 30mm shells at bombers up to 1000m is a common tactic in IL2. After some practise, it works fairly well from a direct 6 oclock approach at a bomber in level flight. But if the target is turning at all, there is virtually no chance of hitting it.
Camo
-
What plane in WW2OL has an mg151/20?
maybe an MGFF..
-
Thx HoHun
P.S. Does anybody know what the range rings relate to on the target board, how much % is 1 range ring in relation to target distance?? (.target ####)??
-
You are right Pongo, there is no 151/20 in WW2OL but the grenade that both 151 and FF are using sure looks the same, only the casing is different. I guess that all 20mm minengeshoss had a selfdestruction mechanism.
-Charge+
-
Apar: I too wanted to know this, and sent an e-mail to HTC via questions@hitechcreations.com. I was trying to compare a gun convergence picture someone posted a while back for the 190 with AH. That pic showed that the mg151's shell arc goes above the sighting line by around a meter or something when set to converge at 550 yds. My question didn't make it to this weeks post, maybe will make it next week.
mauser
-
Originally posted by Charge
You are right Pongo, there is no 151/20 in WW2OL but the grenade that both 151 and FF are using sure looks the same, only the casing is different. I guess that all 20mm minengeshoss had a selfdestruction mechanism.
-Charge+
The Luftwaffe used SD fuzes for air-to-air fighting, non-SD for ground attack.
Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/