Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: OnePunch on December 28, 2002, 12:25:26 AM
-
I'm sorry to say but being killed from d-1000 d900 d-800 d-700 d-600 is all but impossible.
Think about it folks were talking 10 football fields in lenght here.
Or 9, 8, 7, 6 football fields in length.
Flame me all you want but its the truth.
Historical from HTC i seriously doubt it.
-
Longest WWII Hispano kill I am aware of was about 900 yards.
Personally, I think its the range counters that cause the difference. I know I am nothing like alone in this opinion.
-
Bring Il2's gunnery/damage model to aces high.
-
Il-2s gunnery model is worse than AH's.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Il-2s gunnery model is worse than AH's.
Why? I have no clue which one is more accurate (or realistic may be a better term), but IL-2's gunnery model makes most shots in AH qualify as spray'n pray.
-
First of all don't forget to take the 200-300 difference of for lag. Especially if you are pulling away from a con.
Technically speaking it is quite possible to kill from those ranges. The contributing factors in WW2 preventing this from being common were: ammo; visibility; a stable gun platform (turbulence). In AH we have no concerns about unloading all our ammo (well some don't); clear visibility (no oiled up screen, fog, or smoke); and the platform is dead stable.
Apart from that the ballastics are there, the spread is there. The guns are right.
The only way to fix it is either to induce some artificial buffeting (seen in IL2), wind the lethality back and remodel the ballastics to drop more than they really do (also seen in IL2); have players voluntarily spray CRC on their monitors.
What would be really good, imho, is a buffet feature in someone elses slipstream. IE, if you're chasing a con then your experience a small amount of buffet up to d2 behind. Dunno how hard it would be to implement tho.
Originally posted by OnePunch
I'm sorry to say but being killed from d-1000 d900 d-800 d-700 d-600 is all but impossible.
Think about it folks were talking 10 football fields in lenght here.
Or 9, 8, 7, 6 football fields in length.
Flame me all you want but its the truth.
Historical from HTC i seriously doubt it.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
IE, if you're chasing a con then your experience a small amount of buffet up to d2 behind. Dunno how hard it would be to implement tho.
If you actually were in the somewhat narrow band of disturbed air directly behind another aircraft, buffet would increase the closer you got. It wouldn't stop at 200. The heavier the aircraft being followed, the more the buffet.
Perhaps just model the bullets for only 50 feet? At 51 feet the bullets would just disappear into another alternate universe that was exactly the same, only totally different.
Then you'd really have to "get close and then get closer".
How about this for a new slogan?
Send all the unhappy people to IL2!
-
ballistics and spread are right in AH. The real factor is the amount of time a lot of us have with guns and the fact that we are sitting in an easy chair with no distractions.
We can duplicate the poor marksmanship of the average pilot in WWII... but why? AH would have to add some artifical factor like Il2 does in order to do it.
lazs
-
Well, I'm no expert in ballistics/energy in regards to WW2 weapons, but I do resemble one for rifle calibers.
Let's take a garden variety .300 win mag round. At 1000 meters, it still has well over 870 foot pounds of energy. That is a hell of a lot more than even a .44 magnum has at point blank range.
Now, take the .50 cal 750 grain Amax round that I shoot. It has nearly triple the energy of a .300 win mag at 1000 meters. Make no mistake, kiling APC's at this range is usually a one or two shot deal so long as shot placement is correct. And that is what this argument bakes down to IMO - shot placement.
In air to air combat, even while in level flight, there are SO many more variables when it comes to hitting the targets, I'm sure this isn't anything everyone here doesn't already know and accept.
However unlikely hitting another fighter at 1000 meters may or may not be, be certain that if a .50, much less a 20 mm explosive round hits said fighter, it will still have more than enough energy to do catostrophic damage, so long as it strikes the right place (fluke).
So, the original posts statement that killing a fighter in AH at long range is unrealistic because of the distance/power issue isn't very accurate, that said, I've never tried shooting from my 172, but I imagine it would be like anything else: difficult at first, much easier with experience when it comes to actually striking long range targets.
We have a Hispano 20mm in our shop, it came out of a Hurricane 2c at the local air museum. I should round up some 20mm ammo and take it to the range and shoot some tracer at an old car at 1200 meters or so. Video tape of that would prove the case one way or the other, at least in regards to inflictable damage at that range.
-
You think onepunch is a newbie? How long have you been here?
Onepunch I here ya man but dont go banging your head against that wall. Just fly like the guy behind ya is armed with missiles and assume you arent safe until d2k or you are aft you of his 3 / 9 line. :)
-
I didn't think any LW pilots felt safe at less than 2k or so unless they thought they were sneaking up on the guy.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Gman
We have a Hispano 20mm in our shop, it came out of a Hurricane 2c at the local air museum. I should round up some 20mm ammo and take it to the range and shoot some tracer at an old car at 1200 meters or so. Video tape of that would prove the case one way or the other, at least in regards to inflictable damage at that range.
Take some .50 ball/tracer as well. I'll cheerfully contribute some USD to the project if I get a copy of the video! Thx!
-
Hell, I ALWAYS take .50 :). I shoot at least a couple hundred rounds of .50 a month, more if I can get a hold of some cheap ball. Even ball will absolutley mow a 60's era car at 1000 meters. Hate to see what it'd do to a wood/alluminum plane.
-
You know it and I know it. But I think there's a few here that have no idea about the retained energy of a .50 at 1000 meters plus.
:D
-
You guys arent seriously trying to justify AH long range shooting by saying its possible to do so with a gun fixed on a solid shooting bench and firing at a fixed target on the ground. Lets curtail the fanaticism here, ok?
As for IL2 I do think it's "too hard" certainly much harder than AH, but can any of you prove it's not realitic, or is it jush how you "feel". Lets see some data otherwise you are just whiners.
And Toad remember what I said about all those AH cheerleaders whining about IL2... Pretty good so far..
Cmon I see some of you are AH whine police squeakes, how bout you all produce some numbers, or are you all just going on feel or comparing it to another sim...
Otherwise shut up and play, or go away you little whining squeakes...
-
I think this thread covers the issue in its entirety.
1) In WW2 aircraft didnt engage each other at 1000 yards for a vareity of reasons. Some small part training..some major part range finding. Some major part enviromental variables. The absence of these issues inflates the effective range of guns in AH. This is a known issue. It has nothing to do with lags effect on range. The first 2vs2 at the first AH con was settled at 900+ yards by Drex vs Ripsnort.. 2 machines 8 ft apart. The whole HTC staff right there to see it....(P38s by the way)
2)What do we do about it? Like Toad says and I think Il2 has done..fudge the bullets to make them less and less effective?
IL2 has two gunnery settings rediculously weak and rediculously powerful. Oleg cannont refute that kills of 600 yards where not imposible..they were not common but they were not imposible. He cannot refute that 109F4s shot down 5 or 6 P40s with 200 20mm rounds and landed with lots of ammo left...Try that in Il2.
I think in terms of normal range air to air combat...AH has it. The damage model in IL2 is graphically supperior and the details of a plane are more detailed (ie modeled with more precision and fidelity) but the effectiveness of guns in AH is more realisitic. If only they would jam or over heat!
But out beyond 500 yards...AH guns are too effective..but what to do..have the bullets disapear at 501 yards? You better remove all the extra weight of the 50 and hispano that enable those ranges then...Or increase the rof of both weapons as they get lighter and fire lighter rounds.. How do you neuter them?Have one generic 151/20 type weapon that all planes fly and ignore the longer range guns as too hard to model fairly?
tough problem. But neither game has it right. And I think AHs solution is supperior to Il2s on this issue.
GMAN...Let me know the weekend your lighting up the hispano..Ill fly out to see that...
-
"Bring Il2's gunnery/damage model to aces high."
Or you could go to Il2! Actually in your case you could just "go" period. The last thing I want is LESS realism Like a bogus and botched b.s. gunnery system because some people think shots should be artificially hard beyond 200 in range. Next there will be calls to neuter the HO shot.
"Historical from HTC i seriously doubt it."
But you wouldn't mind the awacs radar or full icons in a MA environment with Spit vs Spit or 109 vs 190?
(I checked your score to see where you flew instead of assuming you like the MA. But there is no score for a "onepunch" or even a "1punch." do you even fly in a pay to play arena? If your H2H. Then this whine will cost you $14.95 for this month)
Oed
First of all you little tard I never suggested bringing Il2 gun or damage system to aces High in any respect.I suggest you actually read what someone types rather than go on a diatribe of what you think is correct.
For your information you pathetic little ranter my name in the MA is Tequilla and I have just come back after some time off.
I suggest you go on a newbie name calling spree after you have spent some years here, for now shut up and learn to read what people post.
-
Let's take a garden variety .300 win mag round. At 1000 meters, it still has well over 870 foot pounds of energy. That is a hell of a lot more than even a .44 magnum has at point blank range.
BS meter went off on this one. Check the ballistics tables on the energy for a .44 magnum.:)
-
I was just in il2 109e4 vrs I16 Il2 (early no tail gunner)
I killed 3 and hit % was like 32%
109s4 fyi has 2 x 20mm mgff/m with 60 rpg in the wing. 3 kills in a 109e4 in ah is about what I got in the Cap event. Dont see now big lethality differences. It just matter in il2 what you hit and the angle that you hit it at. Also ah has hybrid rounds.
Hell heres the Sturmlog
(http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/wotans/images/logil2.jpg)
YMMV
-
Actually Texan, wrong.
That is a direct quote from Major John Plaster, USMC, a person who knows just a tad bit more about sniping and long range ballistics and energy than you do. He's written several books on the subject, do a search, as well as he runs a very respectable school similar to ours, his being in the USA, while ours is in Canada.
970 is the highest muzzle energy I've seen for factory .44 mag. High 800's is a lowball figure for .300 win mag, 200 gr. rounds that most of the units I know shoot are all still well over 1000 ft/lbs at 1000 meters, so stick your BS meter.
-
Just a question. Does Piper angles have anything to do with bullet dispersion and range. What do bullets do after or beyond the piper settings do the hit each other? or do they just go on there merry way in the angle they were shot at. Now I know there are planes like the p38 that piper setting are minimal. Where 1000yd hit should be easier.
If the piper is set for 300yds. Is that where all the bullets merge. Then after that what happens? Do the bullets then go in a straight line to the target after that?
Just wondering if this is modeled. I'm pretty sure that some bullets do reach the plane at 1000yds out,but not all bullets.
What percentage of bullets reach the plane being shot at when the piper is set to 300yds. Is it less than 1% or as great as 100%.
Just some thing that makes you go HMMM?
-
The rounds from wing fired form a cone at 300 yards if all your gun are set to converge at that range.
I dont recall how wide the cone is off hand for say the 51 or 47 etc.... But the rounds dont all cross at that converge they form a cone.
In a vacuum I would assume if your converge is at 600 and the bullet pathes come together right at 600 then at 1200 yards they would be as wide apart as fired at 600.
Converge "works" in ah. I have been inside d200 and had jug fire at me and shoot both wing tips off.
Karnak alluded to the problem in his post. Range counters and the uni-hit sprits allow you to zero in. You can test bullet drop and convergence at different ranges using the .target command.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
You guys arent seriously trying to justify AH long range shooting by saying its possible to do so with a gun fixed on a solid shooting bench and firing at a fixed target on the ground. Lets curtail the fanaticism here, ok?
No, what I'm saying is that just about any heavy MG round in this game will easily go 1000 yards (and much more, actually) with plenty of energy left to do serious damage to any WW2 aircraft structure it might hit.
Some folks seem to think these round turn into cheezy poofs at anything over 500 yards or something.
And Toad remember what I said about all those AH cheerleaders whining about IL2... Pretty good so far.
Sorry, don't remember. What did you say?
-
don't fly straight even beyond d500
bullits have higer energy at altitude
a P47 can deliver close to 80 bullits pr sec. think minigun.
if you can damage some parts at that distance, then why not do it
makes the kill easyer.
be careful if the opponent have nosemounted guns, mossie P38
ect.
What they can do to you, you can also do to them
-
you are still a n00b.
And from your 1st reply it obvious you didnt read what he wrote and went ahead and attributed what someone else typed to him.
-
fyi i posted a boresite chart on the tbm in the aircraft section. Dunno if that helps at all.
-
Of course it will go over 1000 yards so will a 7.62 and prolly even some smaller rounds, but so what thats never discussed here. The question is what are the odds you will hit anything at that range. Hit it it from a moving platform, a moving shaking vibrating platfrom, firing from relatively flexible munts in wings, shoot at a moving target at 1000 yards, a tiny target at that range, then concentrate and keep that fire on that target for enough time to do damage.
Its far too easy in AH at long range, but I'm sure the pilots who praised no skill like a long range shot were just lying and it was really really easy to pick off targets at 600plus yards. I just dont think so.
Seems to me that all the AH whine police numbers guys are pulling off an uninformed whine about IL2. Where is the data?
I think you guys are just whining because IL2 doesnt match your romance novel view of aircombat...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Of course it will go over 1000 yards so will a 7.62 and prolly even some smaller rounds, but so what thats never discussed here. The question is what are the odds you will hit anything at that range. Hit it it from a moving platform, a moving shaking vibrating platfrom, firing from relatively flexible munts in wings, shoot at a moving target at 1000 yards, a tiny target at that range, then concentrate and keep that fire on that target for enough time to do damage.
I dont think AH models gun vibrations Grunherz so thats not a valid point IMO.
AH pilot have how many hours of gun training compared to RL pilot?
-
I think the solution is to lose the range indicator at 1,500 yards.
Spitfire at 3,400 yards =
SPIT
3.4
Spitfire at 1,500 yards =
SPIT
1.5
Spitfire at 1,499 yards =
SPIT
Spitfire at 458 yards =
SPIT
-
yep the radar ranging we have allows such shots. When icons are cut, I know for one that my shots change dramatically.
-
Of course it's discussed here. It's continually discussed here.
Here's some simple .50 BMG ballistics:
@2500 yards
velocity=1266 fps
energy=2849 ft. lbs.
time of flight=4.135 seconds
Now, can you be hit at 1k? Absolutely. Will it hit hard? Well, I'd say 2849 ft/lbs is hard.
Yet our bullets essentially disappear ~ 1.1 or 1.2. Is that right? Is that the way it should be? From six or eight guns fired simultaneously that have a cyclic rate of ~ 850 RPM for the aircraft model?
Probably the easiest dynamic thing to program accurately in this whole online ACM game environment would be the gun ballistics.
After all, for the most part this data is known, is verifiable and is easily computed using standardized equations. In short, it's the kind of thing computers are supposed to do very well.
So why would anyone want to "fudge" the ballistics? It's probably the ONE thing that can be done correctly. And range is already "fudged" here to make it shorter. The bullets just disappear around 1.1; we all know they will go much farther.
As for your complaint that anyone is whining about IL2, I don't see any whines. I see folks that don't agree with the route IL2 took on ballistics. To you, that's probably a whine. :D
Nice thing is there is a choice. If you like what IL2 presents more than AH... good for you. It's SO easy to fly what YOU like, isn't it? Probably save you money in the long run as well.
What I DO see is a continual parade of IL2 supporters coming here to the AH BBS and sharing their diagreements with how AH does some things. I don't see those as whines either. They have their opinion and are certainly entitled to it.
I guess what I don't understand is the messianic drive to convert someone else.
I don't go to other boards and proselytize for AH. I think that's just common courtesy.
A true ACM junkie who becomes disenchanted with his present form of ACM entertainment will go looking for a new experience. If he's a true ACM junkie, he'll know what else is out there to try. I don't think anyone at WB or IL2 needs me telling them anything. They can find it on their own.
As I said, I hope they enjoy their game. It's best for all if they do.
And common courtesy should be much more common.
-
As I stated earlier Grunherz (shouldn't that be Gruenherz??), the first post, the one I responded to, wasn't asking the question regarding hit percentage, he specifically reffered to the ability for the round to kill. Onepunch said that being killed at that range should not be possible. He never said "hitting anything at that range is impossible".
I assure you it can at that range. Only the real fighter pilots amoung us who have fired at airborne targets at this distance will have actual knowledge of how difficult it is or isn't.
But rest assured, a .50 API, much less an HE 20mm will still pack a wallop at 1000 meters.
As for IL2, I have no opinion, other than that the creator is a diddlying commie nimrod I had the unfortunate pleasure of having to deal with for a while. I hear his game is great, but I'll never find out because I refuse to buy it.
-
Toad they are whines... Imagine if somebody just accused AH of fudging the gun model without any evidence, oh wait we dont need to, we allready know what happends. They are classiofied as whiners, and so are people that attack the IL2 model with no data - or does that "where's the data" rule only apply to AH?
And why is it a whine and not merely a disagreement with how AH does anything when people complain here?
Wow Gman, so you are saying the guy is some sort of commie biased nimrod who wont model things right? You mean like a conspiracy?
Whiners! Cmon lets see some numbers proving IL2 is wrong. I know it's hard and personally I hate it but I'd love for any of you to prove its wrong so we could badger that "commie nimrod" to change it.
-
Haven't flown IL2 so I can't comment on their modeling.
However, if it is truly impossible to land a hit beyond 500, ballistic data alone should disprove that theory.
So get somebody to fly straight and level in front of you and see how far away he reports a ping. Do it a few times and use all your ammo.
If one is skilled in aiming in IL2, I'd think a few rounds would have to register, no?
Repeat at longer ranges.
As I pointed out, I think rounds terminate early here in AH. Clearly, some of these heavy BMG's will do damage out past 2500. Yet you never hear of any pings at that range, do you? Try as you might on the biggest target in the game and there'll be no a single ping in 1000 tests using the full ammo load.
BTW, I think most normal folks can distinguish between a polite position statement and a whine.
But if you want to toss the "whiner" term around indiscriminately, hey, it's your electronic ink. :p
-
"BTW, I think most normal folks can distinguish between a polite position statement and a whine."
Not too many normal people here then I guess...
"But if you want to toss the "whiner" term around indiscriminately, hey, it's your electronic ink."
Just trying to fit in...
-
It seems that in AH most gun rounds "time out" after about two seconds, dissapearing into oblivion. This would explain the range of the hispano/M2 vs the various other guns that should be able to reach that far(albeit with a significant drop) but dont have the velocity to get there in two seconds.
-
I feel for ya Grun, I really do.
You seem such an angry young man.. about everything.
Good luck!
-
I see folks that don't agree with the route IL2 took on ballistics.
Like I pointed out above Il2 gunnery isnt that different then ah. It just matters as to what you hit the and angle at which you hit. And the fact you need to be close to have a reasonable expectation of getting hit.
I shot an il2 from with 30mm and round punched a whol in the wing went out the other side. In ah any hit any angle causes the same damage.
I shot down a p39q1 with 5 rounds 20 mm. The burnt to a crisp. I can post the Sturmlog as well.
Ah "ballistics" arent the question. But getting kills shots at 900 yards like they do in ah isnt "real". For whatever reason. Some will say that "well 900 really = 600" in that case it could also mean d1200. But from flying with squaddies who have all different connection types and from different areas in the world I have seen the 300+ lag like some imply.
In ah my converge in most planes is at d300. I fire and get most my kills at or near convergence. But I fly 109s with 30mms etc and its not that I cant hit at greater ranges its that with 60 rounds I wanna know when I fire I will kill them.
The "we are more experienced then ww2 pilots at firing our guns" is as much bs as someone claiming they could beat a nascar driver because they play a race car game.
Theres something that allows for kills at what are extreme ranges in ah that doesnt match up with rl. Range counter, Ammo counters, one size fits all hit sprits. Simplified damage where all rounds cause X amount of damage and hybrid rounds maybe it.
Onepunch's original post didnt refer to ballistics but just at the probrability of getting kills at 600 yards plus as lo.
Does this impact fun? In the main no because the mains a meat grinder. In events however where 1 life is all ya get and where plane performance itself is close it matters alot. Especially when the gun type on oneside allows for kill ranges like onepunch mentioned. Take a a6m2 vrs an F4F. The zeke climbs a bit better but that doesnt matter much when the f4f can jack his nose and spray and kill without fear of stalling. He knows he has a high chance of getting that kill at d600 so even he stalls so what.. Same with hispano armed AC.
Kill ranges can have a great and at times unbalancing impact on gameplay in events.
Heres a link to a Tony Williams Thread over on AGW
http://agw.warbirdsiii.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13544&highlight=Tony+Williams
In that thread it gets pointed out that there was a big difference between 'maximum' and 'effective' ranges.
The Luftwaffe figured their maximum range was typically 400m for rifle-calibre guns, 800-1,000m for cannon. However, the effective range (at which range it was worth opening fire because you stood a reasonable chance of hitting) was about half that or less. And this was against bombers.
Now lets get back on topic and answer why is the "effective" kill range in AH at seemingly further ranges then what one gathers from rl.
Or is this the case at all? I think this is true.
Heres a link to Tony Williams "IDEAL WW2 FIGHTER ARMAMENT"
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ideal.htm
-
Hehe..
I'm angry about a few things sure, but then I find most young people have anger and/or energy for something.
It's not for this game though, however I do enjoy arguing on this board..
But I dont see what this has to do with your two faced approach to whining. Apparently its only whining when applied towards AH, but gentlemanly disagreement otherwise. Your midless devotion to AH is something for study...
-
I think 1000yards kills are impossible,and down to 500yrds a matter of luck-spray and pray. From 500yards, maybe skill has a role. In WW2, pilots were reccomended to get as close to their quarry as possible. That should tell us something...
-
Again I'd point out that ballistics is a well established science with extremely repeatable results. Further, computers are well suited to handling these computations.
Therefore, given that ballistic computations are essentially easy, all that remains is "where is the barrel pointing when the gun is shot?" and "does the ballistic path of the bullet from this barrel intersect the target?"
If you give HTC credit for the ability to locate the barrel in the AH universe, chart it's ballistic path and then check to see if the (a) target intersects the path and "collides" with the bullet then there's not much to discuss, is there?
Somewhere you have to believe or accept. In any game.
I'm glad IL2 is a good game for you. I think AH is good for me as well.
Where's the problem here? Just fly the one you like.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Apparently its only whining when applied towards AH, but gentlemanly disagreement otherwise.
No, for me and example of "whining" would be when:
1. A claim is unsupported by any sort of fact or documentation
AND
2. It is repeated ad nauseam by the same or various posters
AND
3. It is accompanied by demands for change to the repeated unsupported "new" position.
I don't see anyone here demanding any changes in IL2, do you? Most of the folks here are focused on AH. What a coincidence; it's the AH BBS!
When we get done studying me, can we study your mindless devotion to insulting nearly everyone you engage in a discussion?
-
Uhuh.. So they are just complaining for evryones enlightenment...
-
I'll have to assume you're talking about people that have posted on the AH BBS noting things they don't like about IL2.
First of all, note that this IS the AH BBS and they are almost always replying to folks posting here about another game. You don't find many people here just starting an IL2 "bash" thread. In fact, I don't think I've seen one. So, these people are responding to someone else, right?
So if someone comes here to the AH BBS touting another ACM game, I'd think it would be normal for people to offer counter opinions. I'd expect it, in fact.
So, is offering a differing opinion complaining? Not to me.
Complaining would be going to the IL2 boards and telling them that their game is in error. I certainly wouldn't do that, although I'm sure there's some people that do.
Now, I'll agree that there's many of those here that could use some lessons in common courtesy and being polite. Not everyone has been a gracious host to our visitors.
But then, there's regulars on this board that insult nearly everyone that they enter into a discussion with, isn't there?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Of course it's discussed here. It's continually discussed here.
Here's some simple .50 BMG ballistics:
@2500 yards
velocity=1266 fps
energy=2849 ft. lbs.
time of flight=4.135 seconds
and that is of a round from what era?
a modern day round, or a ww2 round?
-
That was a quick copy from a website that used an 800 Gr bullet. Not the same as a WW2 bullet.
Here's a trajectory computation I did from WW2 data supplied by Hooligan from source documents and a WW2 chart Pyro posted.
Check this thread for more detail:
190 A/F engine dammage Test 06-21-2001 in Aircraft and Vehicles.
.50 BMG
Trajectory (Basic) Output
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Input Data
Muzzle Velocity: 2845.0 ft/sec
Ballistic Coefficient: 0.650
Drag Function: G1
Bullet Weight: 712 grains
Sight Height: 36.00 inches
Wind Cross Speed: 10 mph
LOS Angle: 0 degrees
Target Speed: 0 mph
Zero Range: 350 yards
Temperature: 5.5 °F
Barometric Pressure: 16.89 in Hg
Relative Humidity: 0.0 %
Altitude: 15000 feet
Air Density: 63 % of Sea Level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calculated Table
Elevation: 17.594 moa
Azimuth: 0.000 moa
Range/ Velocity/ Energy/ Drop
(yards) (ft/sec) (ft-lbs) (inches)
0 2845.0 12795.7 -36.0
100 2754.8 11996.9 -19.8
200 2666.5 11240.1 -8.2
300 2580.0 10523.2 -1.4
400 2495.4 9844.3 0.1
500 2412.6 9201.6 -4.0
600 2331.5 8593.6 -14.0
700 2252.2 8018.8 -30.5
800 2174.6 7475.6 -53.8
900 2098.5 6962.1 -84.4
1000 2023.7 6474.0 -123.0
1100 1950.2 6012.8 -170.0
1200 1878.4 5577.9 -226.2
1300 1808.2 5169.1 -292.2
1400 1739.9 4785.5 -368.9
1500 1673.3 4426.6 -457.1
1600 1608.7 4091.3 -557.7
1700 1546.0 3778.7 -671.7
1800 1485.3 3487.7 -800.3
1900 1427.1 3219.5 -944.7
2000 1371.2 2972.3 -1106.2
*********
-
Why does everyone keep bringing up Il2? Why the hell do we even discuss it here? I've never mentioned it until this thread. Sure it may be a great game, and may even model ballistics and damage better. But this is the board for AH last time I checked.
Also, my dig on Oleg has nothing to do with his game, only him, since he lied repeatedly to me when trying to arrange interviews, never submited beta material as was promised multiple times, and was piss hammered drunk the one time I got to speak to him. Also, remember the SimHQ fiasco, where Oleg claimed that Russian data stated that the Il2 could outfight a 109 in A2A combat. LOL! Ask Zigrat et al who participated in that thread, I'm sure they will remember the lunacy.
All I am saying is that Onepunch's claim that getting killed at 1000 yards isn't possible is crap. Hitting at that range obviously is far less likely then say 300 yards A2A, but it certainly is more than possible. But hitting, AGAIN, wasn't what he was talking about.
-
Originally posted by Toad
As I pointed out, I think rounds terminate early here in AH. Clearly, some of these heavy BMG's will do damage out past 2500. Yet you never hear of any pings at that range, do you? Try as you might on the biggest target in the game and there'll be no a single ping in 1000 tests using the full ammo load
Toad i have heard pings at 2500 from b17's. I was totally pissed when it was happening but it has more than once.
not sure how much lag had to do with it cause everything seemed stable. No warpn
-
Good Shooting beats Good Flying every time. Sad but true...:p
-
Gman onepunch didnt say that. Heres what he said
I'm sorry to say but being killed from d-1000 d900 d-800 d-700 d-600 is all but impossible. Think about it folks were talking 10 football fields in lenght here. Or 9, 8, 7, 6 football fields in length.
Seems to imply that getting hits at 10 football fields is what would be "all but impossible". He never said is was outright "impossible". All thats in your head :)
I believe onepunch has a relative who was bomber gunner. Ask him about their range :)
But bombers are easy kills so one can understand a gameplay tweak here.
Deeztard brought up il2.
-
So many experts, so little clue.
-
maybe it's not yds in the game, maybe its ft???
considering most everything else is in imperial??
-
Hate to say it guys, but if anything the .50 is undermodelled. I don't know a thing about the Hispano, but I know the farthest I've ever heard of a plane being 'killed' by .50 fire was ~4000 yards in the Korean War. Some guy hit a Mig at that range with machinegun fire.
In Aces High, the .50 calibers dissapear at a little more than d1.4 (I believe it is 1,470 yards, I tested it once with the .target command). Fired from a tailgun of a B-17, the .50 will hit out to d1.7 and change.
After that it just dissapears. I guess keeping track of all the rounds for an infinity would be hard on the server, not to mention your FPS :).
As far as 'easily' getting killed at anything past 600 yards, it hasn't happened recently. Has it happened before? Well sure. Once that I can remember. Someone killed my Ta-152 about a year ago with a P-38, firing from 800 yards out or so.
But even then, you usually won't get killed (outright) by a single .50 round hitting you past 600 meters. If you are hearing one ping and a wing is falling off, you must have taken a pretty severe pounding from something else before you got out to 600+ meters. As far as losing flaps, ailerons, elevators, radiator damage... none of those things are hard to damage.
Hell, you could probably punch through the radiator tubing in a car with a pencil, much less a machinegun bullet. And although the AH DM doesn't 'show' control cables, I'm pretty sure it would model them, and a single round of any caliber could cut those- they weren't made of titanium.
-
50,000 feet Urchin....
Saw an interview with an F86 pilot who also flew in WW2. He said quite clearly that range went up a lot because of thinner air at very high alts making less drag on bullets. He said he never shot past 600 yards during WW2 but in korea at very high alts in his F86 he would open up at past 1000 yards. Plus there was new .50cal ammo with more power that came in use after WW2.
So your 4,000 story is not applicable, but that wont bother people...
-
Well, I didn't know how high they were. Regardless, I still think it is applicable, at least for part of this argument. The guns themselves are not overmodelled. The bullets that pilot fired didn't 'dissapear' at 1,400 yards. They kept right on trucking until they intersected with the MiG. In AH, I'll shadow a bomber at 1,800 yards. I like to see them shoot. I laugh when they shoot, because I KNOW none of those bullets are going to reach me. In real life at least a few would.
I play IL-2, I like the gunnery 'system' there better even if it is 'under-modelled'. It 'feels' more real to me. And I'm an even worse shot there than I am here, I usually don't start firing until I'm inside of 150 meters, as opposed to 300ish here.
However, that doesn't mean that IL-2 has it 'right' and AH has it 'wrong'. It means they are different. That is all it means.
-
After the second burst of 3 or 5 out of a m2 ( the heavyer barrel not the light short one on ww3 planes ) the spread of the bullets increased about 10,000% was like a shotgun mayby 3 to 5 deg of spread
i looked thru the whole thead and didnt see anyone mention it .
You cant hit toejam with a hot barrel (after first .2 seconds) over 100 or 200 yards you would never ever the sustained 2 foot pattern at 1000 yds that you see in ah.
That is the problem
htc has to know it and have known it for years cause people have told them befor.
they dont care get over it or quit.
-
I've been playing IL-2 for the past couple of days, offline. The gunnery model sure feels different than AH's. In RL, bullet groups spread more at longer distances, (I.E. a 1 foot group at 100 yards may become a 3 foot group at 200, and a 9 fot group at 300). I have the feeling that this effect is more pronounced in IL-2 than in AH. Which is closer to reality? I don't know, but I'd love to see some charts comparing the two against reality.
One "issue" that I have in these discussions is the term "damage model". Some folks talk about damage model in terms of how much damage bullets do to particular parts, others talk about "damage model" as how planes look and burn etc., when they are hit. These two aspects are totally different. It is a mistake to assume that since IL-2 has a better APEARING damage model that the physics side of "damage model" is also better.
IMHO, most guns in IL-2 are too weak at all ranges. This is based on years of reading about the airwar, watching documentaries/footage, and talking to vets. Planes in IL-2 seem to be very tough, like the exception has been made into the rule. 37mm and 45 mm cannon seem about right, however.
eskimo
-
Read over that AGW thread I linked......
its pretty interesting.....
-
One huge difference between RL and any sim is that in WWII, 80-85% of all kills were bounces. If you are sneaking up on a guy, you're not going to blow your big surprise by starting to hose away at 500 yards, you're going to get in close so that he's dead before he even knows that he's under attack.
In flight sims, we have better SA (esp. with icons and radar). Its rare to go 5 or 10 minutes without seeing an enemy. In WWII, a heck of a lot of guys died without ever seeing an enemy plane!Bounces in sims are probably the inverse of RL (15-20%).
The bottom line is, because we play a game/sim, we fly and shoot VERY differently than the guys in WWII did.
eskimo
-
Check out "The 50 cal. Buff Gun Laser Myth, Part 2: Ballistics and Energy" for more.
eskimo
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
One huge difference between RL and any sim is that in WWII, 80-85% of all kills were bounces. If you are sneaking up on a guy, you're not going to blow your big surprise by starting to hose away at 500 yards, you're going to get in close so that he's dead before he even knows that he's under attack.
Sorry, but this is a common misconception based on the statement that 85-90% of pilots who were shot down never saw their attacker.
Many (most maybe) people take this to mean that the victim was flying along, straight and level, without a clue the enemy was in the area when suddenly his plane was out of control due to fire from an unseen aircraft. This is the common definition of a bounce.
What that statement actually referes to is that most pilots never saw the attack that got them. They were manuvering, fighting, possibly target fixated when an enemy aircraft that was in the fight, but that they did not see take up a guns position on them, and it proceded to shoot them down.
-
I'm just interested what AH would be like with ammo counters removed, and hit sprites that diminish in size with distance and differs by ammo type.
Times like this I wish there was a "Test Arena" in AH, where new suggestions would be tried out for real to see if they are appealing.
-
I can't remember the last time I was killed at ranges greater than d 0.6, nevermind 1k etc. I never fire at anything over 400 and rarely over 300.
-
Originally posted by Otto
Good Shooting beats Good Flying every time. Sad but true...:p
Just as an aside, relative to nothing in particular - while I never flew AW with HiTech (he'd left by the time I arrived) I'm told by those who did that he was the best sharpshooter ever there, by far :)
culero (he shoot anybody here lately? ~G~)
-
a .50 cal can hit up to d1.3 , now lag might be in effect when I see d1.3 and the other guy sees d900, so I can only say that from MY end, I can hit up to d1.3. Spraying of course.
I agree that its the ICONS in AH that make such long range shots (which were very rare IRL in WW2).
Why HTC has not done a better icon system is beyond me. Ive said it a hundred times and i'll say it again, the WW2OL icon system, unquestionably the only thing CRS seems to have done right, is an EXCELLENT icon setup.
Icon will fade into view if you stare at the point in the sky for 3 or 4 seconds simulates the pilot "focusing" , there is no laserangefinder, but instead theres a distance indicator that encircles the target and "ticks away" the closer you get. It also turns a different color when it gets "in weapons range".
-
Hey....I have an idea!!!!
All of you guys that can't seem to enjoy yourselves in AH and believe that the gunnery, FM or the material used in building the runways are not as accurate as IL2, just quit AH and go fly the better sim.
Or, is your life so pathetic that you must spend your time whining to others who actually enjoy themselves about something that matters only to you?
The best of all of this, to me at least, is that none of you have any real life experience which would apply to these whiner discussions.
Have ya flown a warbird? How about just a real aircraft? Ever shoot a .50 caliber round on the ground or in the air?
Oh wait, I forgot the part about misery loving company....unhappy folks are always lookin for someone to hang with so they can enjoy a bowl of "aint life a pisser" soup.
If some of you could see how ridiculous you look posting this crap.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Sorry, but this is a common misconception based on the statement that 85-90% of pilots who were shot down never saw their attacker.
Many (most maybe) people take this to mean that the victim was flying along, straight and level, without a clue the enemy was in the area when suddenly his plane was out of control due to fire from an unseen aircraft. This is the common definition of a bounce.
What that statement actually referes to is that most pilots never saw the attack that got them. They were manuvering, fighting, possibly target fixated when an enemy aircraft that was in the fight, but that they did not see take up a guns position on them, and it proceded to shoot them down.
Karnak, The 80-85% may include distracted manuevering targets, however, most of the kills that I have read about were bounces. Hartman described his typical kill as zoom climbing up to point blank, under an IL-2's blind spot and blasting the oil cooler. From what I have read, most kills were on planes that were on a given coarse and were snuck up on without any manuevering from the victom until shot at. I've also read accounts of pilots who went months of combat duty without seeing an enemy plane. Most combat duty was relatively boring and I could see how easy it could be to let your gaurd down.
In RL, good fighter pilots were patient HUNTERS. They stalked their prey much like a hunter searches and kills his prey. Most planes were destroyed before they could put up a decent fight.
eskimo
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Read over that AGW thread I linked......
its pretty interesting.....
that site has 20 or 30 popups when u ping it
Commie bastards..... ;)
-
Rude, you're whining about the whiners again.
Maybe you can set up a good example to us whiners by not popping up in every post you think it even sounds like a whine to you.
Or maybe we're just all addicted to this whine-antiwhine love/hate relationship for Kodak moments. Ugh..!
-
My original post here was trying to put into perspective the actual distance a kill could be made on a moveable platform onto or into another moveable platform.
I will not dispute or even try to dispute the energy some projectiles have at distance.
What my intent here was to put into perspective shooting from a flying moving shaking platform.Not a fixed platform.
Now it seems some people have discussed well they have their convergence at 400 yards or 300 yards or whatever.
This being the case then at 300 or 400 yards or whatever these projectiles would intersect each other at these relative points and continue on there way, however a target at 1000 or plus yards 3 or 4 times the distance of their convergence the bullets would be imo widening and moving away from the actual target based on their convergence setting.
Food for thought.
-
there are cases of jap planes being killed at over 1000 yards by guys testfiring their guns in WWII.
Are any of you saying that the dispertion of .50's would not allow a person to shoot down a non manuevering plane dead ahead of him at 1000 yards or more? So... if it is possible in AH but not in Il2..... who is right? Seems that test firing guns at 200 yards from real planes shows that it is not only possible but probbible that you would get a hit with 6 .50's at 1000yard especially if your convergence was set at 450 like most of us do..
It is not the gunnery in AH It is the skill... Drex is as poor a shot as I am. neither of us breaks 5% with any regularity... I can't even hit a plane unless it is a full deflection shot. I don't see where drexies pitiful marksmanship has hindered his ability to kill planes.
And Wotan... I don't think that haveing boocoup more hors of shooting practice is something to sneeze at.. I also say that not having any fear or stress is a factor and the fact that you are in a target rich environment and basicly close to home. It is also good to know that your guns won't jam but I don't see any way to do that fairly... The average for .50's was 1 jam in 3000 rounds.. that would mean that only one of your guns might jam in two sorties. I lose more guns than that to damage.
Also... Il2 is a cannon game. cannon have low rounds per sec because you only have 1 or 2 cannon as oppossed to 4, 6 or even 8 high rate .50's.... do they have the p47 and 51 now? if so... how do they do against stable targets at 1000 yards?
lazs
-
At 1980 when i was in the army, i had
shoot , between others, with the 4 barrel
0.50, our known m.16 at 1000m dist.
I can tell you one thing.
You dont want to be to the point where
the 0.50s go. Its Hell . You will never see
in a moovie how in reality is. I repeat 1000m.
I dont know for bigger dist. but at 1000m
the bullets was going complete straight.
I dont know if they was WWII era 50s or the new ones.
I have also shoot with the 20mm rheinmetal and with the old good 40 bofors.
The 20 mm at 2000m dist.
It has 2 barrels 920 shells per min each.
The hell on earth @ 2000m.
We was doing also shoots @
2000m all on target (sights with zoom).
The 40mm bofors (is on PTs in AH) its a
deadly weapon at 3000m IF it gets you. Only 6 sells and very lazy. But Deadly. I believe a good shooter can have results even @ 4000m.
That is my little experience with GUNS.
-
I have never made a comment in my original post or replies about il2 in any respect.I dont play it .
I am saying the probability of killing a target at 1000 yards out is and should be extremely low.
You state their have been cases of guys testfiring their guns and killed japaneese targets at 1000 yards. Can you post your proof please? did they have range indicators? im not disputing you just would like to read for myself.
-
OnePunch ...
How many times have you been killed at 1000+ yards ?
Is it happening to you alot lately ?
I have hit a fair amount of planes at 1000 yards in my F4U/FM2/F6F/P51 and they continue to fly ... very rarely have I gotten a kill and if I did, I presumed that they must have already sustained some prior damage. What usually happens is that they sustain some sort of damage that either slows them down or they figure "screw it" and they turn back for the fight. That is usually my intention when firing at long distance .. I never expect a kill.
-
onepunch... the reference is in 'aces of the pacific' I can't point to the page but it's worth reading in any case... I don't believe that the guy had any real clue as to how far he shot from but his wingman and him agreed on the yardage.
I believe that judging by every account I have read about.... pilots consistently UNDERESTIMATED the ranges that they were firing at... believing that they were firing at 2-300 yards when in reality they were shooting at planes further than 1000 yards.
I cannot think of a factor that would prevent a percentage of well aimed bullets hiting a non manuevering target from a WWII ac at 1000 yards.... In AH I have hit planes at 1000 yards (pinged em) but I have never killed one from that distance. I think that there is no way for WWII pilots to know if they got a hit or two at 1000 yards or not unless the plane started smoking or went down or lost something large.
wotans score shows that he took and average of 211 rounds to kill a plane in Il2... this seems excessive to me.
lazs
-
Hey Rude I got an idea how stf and dont read the threads that bother you so.
Look who brought the squeakiness to this thread Gman Oep and now you.
If you dont wanna read then dont. Is your fediddleing life so pathetic that you gotta take every opportunity to insert yourself into something you deem below you? Its quite obvious you only enter these threads (and you do ever one) to prop yourself up.
Back to the topic
Maximum range and Effective range different things. There cant be any doudt that any round can hit at 1000yrds. The ballistics arent what the original thread brought up. As for pilot anecdotes they are just that. They also claim to have bounced rounds off the ground and penetrated the underside of armor kill folks inside. They claimed to have welded guys in the tank by hitting the hatch lips "entombing" the tank crews. Also bomber gunners claimed so many kills I doudt how any can believe umm.
In that thread I linked Tony Williams and Henning get into range and velocity and the like.
-
Lazs
Dont think to hard about that because I shot a total of 6 different planes but only killed 3. In a 109e4 you get 120 rounds of mgff/m and 2000 rounds of 7mm.
I get about the same number kills in one ammo load in AH flying the 109e4 here as I did in that il2 session. The best I got was 5 in Cap in a 109e.
I can post another sturmlog of me killing a p39 with 5 rounds. Or a DF session showing that the guys getting kills average about 15 -25 rounds of all types.
-
OnePunch,
Don't take this stuff too seriously. Also keep in mind that in these threads one topic leads to another, and that one leads again to another, etc.
eskimo
-
Maximum range and Effective range different things. There cant be any doudt that any round can hit at 1000yrds. The ballistics arent what the original thread brought up.
I'm sorry to say but being killed from d-1000 d900 d-800 d-700 d-600 is all but impossible.
Doesn't look he said anything about being hit, he specifically said being killed.
Tell you what Wotan. Why don't you come to the range with Onepunch, Fork can drive us.
d600 is extremely close for precision rifle fire. Every sniper/service rifle shoot I've participated in, at that range with any of my precision rifles, headshots are VERY possible, and usually used for tie breakers. A mounted .50 M2 on the ground would obliterate any WW2 fighter sized target at this distance in short order. I fail to see how 6 or 8 wing mounted 50's couldn't do the same in a stern chase situation, which is where most of the non-HO kills at long distance in AH occur.
I can understand the argument that it is unfair to the L/W, because I personally feel that the L/W guns are far, far inferior at mid and long range to Allied .50 cal armed planes, and I've seen it written many places where this supposedly wasn't the case.
But don't attack that problem by cooking up attacks on the .50 and Hispano 20mm capabilities. Wotan, you're in Florida, there is a bazillion long range rifle ranges there. Get someone to shoot some tracer from a 30 or 50 cal rifle at 1000 yards for you, you'll see it isn't that big of a deal, and if you stopwatch the flight time, and observe the ballistic track, you'll see that it looks quite similar to the flight line the .50 takes in AH out to 1000.
-
Why do you guys bring up "precision rifle fire" to justify hits from anything but a precision firing platform? That doesnt make any sense...
-
Well, as an example only now. I originally brought it up because the way Onepunch worded his first post, I thought he was reffering to the energy in the round being to weak to kill at long range.1 shot per 3 or 4 seconds from a rifle compared to 80 shots per second + from a fighter, the point is that "precision" isn't really going to matter. Even if the fighter is slighty less stable, and I'm not so sure that it is, I fly a 172 in the roughest air in North America, and watching my wing flex around the bit that it does, I don't think that firing mounted guns from it would be all that big a deal at these ranges, particularly with the fire rate involved.
Sure, the % chance of killing a target is going to be far less, but if the guns were harmonized at 650, hitting wouldn't be too hard. I've done a bit of formation stuff, and coming up behind another aircraft at a range of 600, you can hold a spot on the windshield fairly steadily on it. With such a huge volume of fire, I really don't see how you could have a clean miss. Sure many rounds wouldn't strike, but a fair number would.
-
Nah I never take things to seriously eskimo especially here. What i tried to do was create the topic of firing from a moving platform and Grunheuz response on page 1 of this thread was spot on in my opinion.:D
-
what makes you think I dont shoot?
effective range doesnt mean the range at which damage is lethal in this context. It refers to the ability of one plane to shoot and hit another. Are you saying that a plane is as stable a platform as shooting a rifle off a rest?
From a dead six a plane has what maybe 5 to 6ft (height) of target area? The fuselage and horizontal surfaces can cause rounds to skip off at if hit at the correct angle.
Some posted a while back a test of bombers gun (b17 or b24s dont remember). From the on the ground the side gunners at 600 yrds had a dispersion of 30+ feet. The tail gunner was 20+.
Trying to compare firing a rifle to wing mounted guns at 300 mph + and hitting a target 10 9 8 7 football fields away is a bit much.
Pilot interviews posted on the board asked specific question about range. Galland and other interviewed german pilots were asked about range. None umm said "well we could hit but our bullets did no damage". They said at ranges beyond 300-400yrds you had no reasonable expectation of hitting.
Heres what Tony Williams says in that other thread at AGW
Range was not such a big issue in actual air fighting in WW2, so the ballistic coefficients of the rounds were not generally considered too important (when Spitfires were first fitted with two Hispanos, the RAF was annoyed that gun bay restrictions prevented the guns' fire from converging at less than 300 yards; they wanted 200!).
The comparison with hunting rifles in not valid, IMO, because in that case you are always using the same type of bullet, so the relationship in destructiveness has a much clearer link to muzzle energy. Introduce high-explosive shells into the equations and the results would be very different, which is why cannon rrate better than the .50. This is realistic, believe me!
Similarly, the difference between the .303 and .50 should not be too exaggerated in the air-to-air context. Before the war, the RAF tested .50 v .303 extensively, and pointed out that for the most part the .50 just made slightly bigger holes through the structure without doing significantly more damage. Of course, that was before armour and self-sealing tanks, etc, which gave the .50 a clear lead.
-
The comparison with hunting rifles in not valid, IMO, because in that case you are always using the same type of bullet, so the relationship in destructiveness has a much clearer link to muzzle energy. Introduce high-explosive shells into the equations and the results would be very different, which is why cannon rrate better than the .50. This is realistic, believe me!
Always using the same type of bullet invalidates rifle comparisons? This guy must be british and not get to the range much. This entire statement only further proves my point. Of course destructiveness has a "clear link to energy". Wow, what a scientist! Without an explosives package in the round, what else would cause damage. His statement about explosive shells only further proves MY points.
Also, there is nothing in this quote saying anything about it being impossible to hit at long range. It merely says that it wasn't an issue, because most noted pilots wanted to be very close when firing (they wanted 200 instead of 300 convergence, so this quote from Tony says). All well and good. Everyone knows that being closer is better than farther, but that certainly didin't eliminate the fact that pilots did fire AND hit AND kill at longer ranges.
Trying to compare firing a rifle to wing mounted guns at 300 mph + and hitting a target 10 9 8 7 football fields away is a bit much.
Why exactly? Having such a huge rate of fire would IMO more than make up for lack of accuracy. With so many tracers flying, I'd think it'd be easy to adjust fire. Again, I'm just going off what it feels like when I fly, when I've been within 1k of other planes, like any other simmer I look out the cockpit windows and try and visualize what firing on that plane would look like. When comparing it to what it looks like firing at targets from 200 to 1500 meters on my rifle range, it just doesn't look all that hard.
I'd like to hear what Toad or Eagl or any other fighter pilots (Andy Bush would be great too) have to say about shooting drones or towed targets with air to air cannon at long range (does the USAF even do this?). Modern day 20mm Vulcan cannons have a higher fire rate (sure a bit more but not 5x much more or anything) than say a Chog, and the round isn't all that much more lethal now than it was back in WW2. I wonder if any of these guys has some personal experience and info regarding long range a2a gunnery.
-
read the thread I am not gonna cross post everything. Tony is published and his book is a good read and he has another coming out. I will look for your book as well.
What he says balances perfectly with what I read from other pilots in regards to firing range.
But hey if you are saying that firing a rifle from a bench and hitting a stationary target at 1000yrds is equal to doing the same in the air I'll take your word for it :rolleyes:
As for your points I have yet to figure what they are. Either you except that pilots have np getting hits at the ranges referred to. Or you dont. What happens when hit is not the question. Or not the one I am considering anyway.
Anyway this threads come full circle.........
We have name calling, generally disagreements and even Rude graced us with his presence. I guess we can call this one done?
-
You cant compare a post war gatling gun with all sorts of advanced sighting and radar aids to WW2 guns... First you use sniper rifles now gatling guns, wht not discuss WW2 aircraft guns fitted in aircraft in the wings with everything vibrating and shaking.
Gee whats next on the comparison AMRAAM?
-
Well, IMO, there are several things that make it seem like gunnery in AH is very simple.
1. Range thingamabob. It tells us exactly how far an enemy plane is from us. I have my convergence set to 500 on all my 50 cal planes in here. When I am chasing a plane, I am constantly trying to figure out where to place the center of my sight to squeeze off a burst to ping someone. There is no guessing how far a plane is away. The icon says 450, the plane is 450 and I know it.
2. Experience. This is probably as important as anything else. This month alone I have shot down more planes than anyone else in "real life" ever did. I am almost certain I have been in more fights this month than anyone else in "real life" ever has. What does this mean? It means that I have had more practice than those guys ever had (please note that I am not saying that I am better than any real fighter pilot or that my playing a game is anywhere near comparable to what they were doing, just that I have had more time to practice my trade than they did). I would be willing to bet that I have fired more rounds than anyone in "real life" ever has. Hence, I have more experience with my "world" than they did with theirs.
3. Game vs. Reality. As many people have pointed out, this is a game. Because of this, I don't worry about running out of ammo while firing. Worst case scenario is that I don't get to land some kills. I know exactly what they other plane is going to do or is capable of. Why? because I have the chance to fly the planes that I am going to fight.
4. Real world issues. There are external factors in the real world that can't be modelled until everyone has a computer on their desk that exceeds the capabilities of a super cray. Environmental effects on bullet trajectory. Turbulence. Barrel wear. Barrel heating. Bad rounds. Difference in tracer ballistics vs. non-tracer rounds. Altitude.
5. And everything else...
Anyways, the bottom line is this: Bullets don't kill planes, people pulling the trigger in their planes kill other planes.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
But hey if you are saying that firing a rifle from a bench and hitting a stationary target at 1000yrds is equal to doing the same in the air I'll take your word for it :rolleyes:
What if there is little or no relative motion between the two aircraft?
IE: Buff on autopilot at 250 knots, fighter steady and level behind him at 250 knots?
-
I've read the whole thread and ignoring some of the vitriol that has appeared, there is one point that everybody seems to be ignoring.
Deflection Angle.
Shooting at a moving target from a moving platform is not the same as shooting at a stationary ground target from a stationary ground platform. I've played with a few weapons including a Barret Light .50 sniper's rifle, and I can confirm what Hades55 said about that particular round's flat trajectory at up to 2000m. The sight on the particular weapon I tried was graduated in 100m increments and the difference in angle between the sight and the bore line of the weapon was not detectable by the naked eye (well my one anyway).
Add in the variables of firing at a target manouvering in 3 dimensions from a platform moving in 3 dimensions and I don't reckon I could hit a damn thing. Bomber gunners had to deal with differing closure rates from different angles as well as tracking with a moving turret. Deflection shooting is not something that comes naturally to most people. Human beings are designed to hit moving targets from a relatively stationary platform. We're really good at calculating the trajectory of an object from a stationary position. But it takes practice to be able to move and make the continuous 3 dimensional adjustments that for instance Tennis players eventually take for granted.
Thats why there were so few "Aces" in relation to the huge number of Pilots and Air Gunners in WWII. Only a few people had either developed the necessary skills for deflection shooting, or were born with a natural advantage to be able to accurately guess where an opponent would be when the rounds they fired arrived. That's why many Aces favoured the Point Blank method, Even then they would have had to deal either conciously or intuitively with the aerodynamic "wash" from the aircraft in front bouncing them around.
In AH we also don't have to deal with the physical effects of flying either. You don't get that nauseous feeling after being tumbled around the sky in vicious moves. You don't have to deal with the after effects of a red out or blackout which can leave even experienced pilots disoriented. Flying in an unpressurised aircraft at 8000ft in turbulent conditions can be absolute hell. Especially if you have a very slight cold.
I think the bullet "disappearing" issue is at least an attempt to tone down the effect of the "perfect" flying conditions we get in AH.
palef
-
Well said Mathman.
eskimo
-
You cant compare a post war gatling gun with all sorts of advanced sighting and radar aids to WW2 guns... First you use sniper rifles now gatling guns, wht not discuss WW2 aircraft guns fitted in aircraft in the wings with everything vibrating and shaking.
Ok mr mispelled L/W experten, kindly tell me the difference between the ballistics of a WW2 hispano fired 20mm and that from a Vulcan 20mm. There really isn't any. How will radar improve the dispersion pattern or the ability of the pilot to hold the pipper on the target? At 1000 yards, flying in a level stern chase, which is teh only way I've ever been killed at that range in AH, what is SO different between modern day a/c guns and WW2 fighter guns of the same caliber. Maybe a hot 500 fps if that, and slightly more lethality due to better explosives. Also, you think that modern day fighter's don't shake either?
What he says balances perfectly with what I read from other pilots in regards to firing range.
But hey if you are saying that firing a rifle from a bench and hitting a stationary target at 1000yrds is equal to doing the same in the air I'll take your word for it
Ya, his statement in your quote pretty much summed up exactly what I've said, he never spoke to the possibility of hitting at long range. Also, I never said firing from prone is equal to doing it in the air, I've said pretty much the opposite, WITH the exception being that the much higher rate of fire WILL compensate for the less accurate platform and othe variables, so please don't create lies like that again to further your weak arguments. Care to post an exact quote of where I said shooting a rifle is "equal to doing the same in the air"? Ya, you can't can you.
Also, whoever brought deflection into this shouldn't have, I've never seen a 1000 yard deflection kill in AH more than a few degrees, and I doubt any of you have either. The only time I get hit or hit other fighters at that range is in nice flat chases.
Also, whoever is saying that the .50 flies flat out to 1000 or 2000 meters, I'd love to have some of whatever you were smoking when you saw this.
709 gr .50 cal tables for trajectory:
200 yards : -4.8 inches
500 yards: -52.2 inches
1000 yards: -284 inches
1500 yards: -831 yards.
-
Gman who cares about balistics everyone here argrees that bullets do indeed travel very far. Now stop trying to change the subject by arguing about how accurate sniper rifles are and how post war accurate radar assited sighting systems attached to gatling guns are and argue how likely it is to hit at 1000 yards with WW2 weapons.
Are you really that deluded and fanatic to think sniper rifles have any relevance to WW2 machine gun accuracy.
Tell me yes or no?
Tell me how precision slow firing sniper rifle accuracy at 1000 yards has any bearing on that of full auto MG in a flexible shaking mount with no scope.
Why even bring up sniper rifles.
How bout you shut up about gatling guns with radar assited aiming and sniper rifles and discuss WW2 fighter armament for a change..
Damn fanatic....
-
It's unquestionable that 2 or 6 or 8 .50 BMG's can do serious damage at 1000+ yards.
It's unquestionable that HTC has ballistic equations for all the rounds in the game, not just the .50 BMG.
It's unquestionable that HTC has a method of "locating" the guns on a particular aircraft in the AH 3D "universe".
It's unquestionable that HTC has a method of plotting the ballistic trajectory of rounds from our guns from the moment of firing until they are no longer tracked at a certain point or time.
It's unquestionable that HTC has a method of plotting the position of the target or target aircraft in the AH "universe" and also the target's movement through the AH "universe".
It's unquestionable that HTC has a method of determining whether or not the bullet stream and the target track intersect.
Now given all of these unquestionable items, there seems little doubt that it IS possible to hit other aircraft at ranges beyond 200-300 yards that some think would be "realistic" based on what they read.
Because we do it in the game.
Now, if you don't think it should be possible, you'll have to find fault with the way HTC computes position of gun at firing, ballistic trajectory of bullet after firing and plotting of target movement through the AH universe or the method of determining the intersection of bullet and target.
I seriously doubt any one here has the capability to review the code and show an errror.
If you do, good. Please do so.
If you can't.. just play the game.
-
I never said the 50 flies flat I have chart of jug converge and they clearly arc like the charts I have for the FW.
Gman and Toad you brought the whole ballistic (energy hit power etc....). Onepunch called this thread "shooting" and brought up range. Do you agree that for whatever reason "conditions" in AH allow for a greater probrability to get hits at above d600 that werent there in rl?
If you agree with this then why cant the answer to onepunch's original post be:
"in ah we have range, ammo counters and that allow the player the ability to get hits at that distance"
instead of trying to relationalize it as anything but that.
FYI
I have never seen a 1000yrd defelection either but someone posted a film of them getting killed at d1200 a while back.
Toad,
What if there is little or no relative motion between the two aircraft?
IE: Buff on autopilot at 250 knots, fighter steady and level behind him at 250 knots?
In AH this is what happens but taking what happens ingame are trying to apply it to rl wont work. Why do people fire at range in ah? Because they have a reasoable expectation of getting hits. Why in rl did they fire at closer distances? because they had a reasonable chance of hitting.
How do you balance the 2? well thats up to ht. Does he want rl "effects" or just to get things as accurate as possible and let the game go where it ends up.
Some players would want effect over number accurracy. But if you take game conditions and attempt to match that with real life then I think thats backwards.
Ofcourse there are folks who say they never see any of this so there aint much to say to them.
-
Thats all true Toad!
But it's also unquestionable that we kill at much longer ranges than was comman in WW2.
So its unquestionable that something significant doesnt match reality.
But of course we can argue that I once hit a stationary paper target 1200 yards away with my scoped sniper rifle while prone and using a bipod and this makes AH correct. :D
But Toad I actually dont mind the AH gunnery setup, I really like that twin 13mm kill on a P47 at 850 yards - love how his whole wing just dropped off. Ohh yea!
-
was typing when you posted toad,
what if it aint an error but other "gameplay" features that facilitate it.
Are discussing these "features" taboo? or the topic?
-
I think the only reason people can score hits at 'extreme' ranges (say 700 yards plus) is because of the range counters and hit strikes.
Thats another thing IL-2 does different that I'm not sure is completely accurate or not but that I like better - MG fire doesn't do 'hit flashes' like it does here. Cannons do, because you'll see the cannon round explode, but MG fire doesn't.
Of course, in all the WW2 gun camera footage that I've ever seen of .50 calibers, they left a very clear 'hit strike' - you could see the flash where they hit very clearly. I'm not sure what the range is on your typical gun camera footage though.
-
I know for a fact WW2 .50 cal produced a bright flash on impact, in fact AH models it almost perfectly as seen on B/W stills. I cant recall if I'd seen it on color film or not though.
-
I've got my icons turned down so small I can't read range anymore. I still get hits at long ranges. Maybe it comes from 3 years of looking at and shooting at AH planforms?
If I didn't have ammo counters.. I'd still get those same hits. I just wouldn't know when the guns were about to go dry. Tell me, do you stop shooting at a con when the counters go low? I don't. Once I'm on a guy and I think I have a good chance of knocking him down, I'll continue to take shots until he's dead or I'm outta ammo.
So give me just a red IFF dot.. which is about all I can see now. I can't read plane types on the lowest icon size setting... and take away my ammo counters. I'll submit to you that my shooting style and percentages .. which aren't all that great anyway.. won't change much.
BTW, what are the shooting percentages of those guys that take 500+ yard shots? I think you'll find them in the sub-5% range.
Bottom line is I believe most players with a year or so under their belt would shoot about the same without range or ammo counter info.
Grun if you knocked down a wing off a jug with a small burst of 13mm at 850 either he was damaged prior to you hitting him or it's a damage model question.. not a gunnery question.
There is absolutely no doubt that 13mm will travel more than 850 yards. So it's quite possible.
Tell me, how many of you guys can consistently hit a well flown maneuvering target at 850 yards?
I think we can all hit a non-maneuvering target if we get a few "squirts" to zero in. I doubt if there's many.. if any.. that can score at 850+ on a maneuvering target on a consistent basis.
Now, I'm going to refer you all to something Eagl said. :D
-
COPYRIGHT EAGL
echo 1 > /dev/rant
That goes for HO's, ack lethality, moderation idiocy, etc. There's a lot of posting going on here about why one feature or another is broken, stupid, or whatever, and even more posting on what HT ought to do about it, but frankly none of that matters if HT thinks it's working as planned. As a simple purely hypothetical example, if random acts of moderation get rid of a few vocal players that are perceived to be detracting from the game, then it makes sense to keep such a system in place. Getting a moderator message saying "it's my game" makes HT's position on arena moderation very clear. The same goes for ANY game feature, from ack strength to coming up with some way to discourage headon attacks. HT will set up the game to encourage certain things, discourage other things, and whatever he doesn't care about he will leave alone.
My personal guess after playing HT's game for 7 years is that HT doesn't care very much about headons, otherwise he would have done something about it by now. I don't personally care so I've never asked, but anyone who does ought to pick up the phone and ASK before making any assumptions. In my experience, HTC is very accessable and willing to speak to players on the phone about almost any topic, so it's worth a shot.
echo 0 > /dev/rant
I think we can add "gun range" to Eagl's thoughts and just leave it at that.
;)
-
Wasnt a small burst I adjusted and aimed at his jinking at 800 yards, by 850 he was dead.
Like I said I love that I can do this but I doesnt make sense compared to anything I read about WW2.
-
Wotan, I think Eagl's quote pretty well covers the "gameplay" aspect.
It's not like HT doesn't know how the guns work here.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Wasnt a small burst I adjusted and aimed at his jinking at 800 yards, by 850 he was dead.
Like I said I love that I can do this but I doesnt make sense compared to anything I read about WW2.
You know why this occurs in AH more than it did in WW2 (and I am not so bull headed to believe it didn't happen, just incredibly rare)? All you need to do is go read my post above. That contains the answer you need to understand why this occurs (and I am not trying to be a smart ass, just making a point that seems to be lost on all the beligerents in this case).
-
"For your information you pathetic little ranter my name in the MA is Tequilla and I have just come back after some time off. "
You dirty dog.......never told anyone did ya??? I leave, come back two months later and no Onepunch but some guy named Tequilla who I've never heard of just tearing em up in a Jug.
"Gee Mr. Obvious I never made the connection"
LOL Zaphod
-
Guess I'm still not getting it.. Are some of you saying that the dispertion from 6-8 wing mounted machine guns would make it impossible to get hits on a plane flying straight and level?
what is different about Il2 that doesn't allow this? is the dispertion wrong on one sim?
lazs