Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: CyranoAH on January 15, 2003, 08:42:21 AM
-
After reading this very interesting interview posted in the O'Club:
http://airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/golodnikov/index.htm
it becomes clear that most of the aces opened fire at extremely short distances compared to what we are used to in AH. The problem is that in RL one would not get hits and well... you know what happens here.
I know this has been discussed before, but here's an idea (dunno if someone already proposed it): why not only show impact flashes at distances of 300yds or less?
I mean, you can fire at whatever distance you want, but you won't know if you are indeed hitting your target if they are further away than 300yds.
I believe that would make people fire at shorter distances, hence making AH engagements more like the ones in RL.
Whatcha think?
Daniel
-
i think maybe you need to fly a faster plane, or at least one that accelerates better.
:D
-
Nah wish it was just that, but the spray'n pray is a constant in the MA... I try to fire only at extremely short distances to keep things real.
I think it's a simple change to make and that it could bring good things, that's all.
Daniel
-
gotta keep in mind that due to net lag, what you are seeing isn't always what is.
-
I like the concept, but the implementations sounds a bit too artificial for my tastes. Perhaps it would be better to scale the visible damage with the actual damage inflicted - if something gets knocked off you see it get knocked off, debris from cannon shell detonation etc. If only holes are punched in the sheet metal or fabric, then you shouldn't be able to see hit sprites too clearly. I should think when particle effects are introduced to replace the sprites, this will be looked at.
-
I think it’s a bad idea and do not believe it would bring good things. Gunnery is already a very difficult thing to learn. Taking away the ability to know for sure hits are landing at long distances would create unnecessary difficulty to the game.
-
I agree with Dowding's post. Once they can move from the 2d sprites to the 3d particle system for visual hit cues, things might be better. Of course, I think you'll still be able to see when you hit with exploding rounds. ;)
-
I personaly don`t like the idea. The P51-D is capable of hits at 1k and I like to know if hits are scored.
-
Hi Daniel!
WB/iEN experimented with all this, and they made a right buggery-suet of it - especially as implementation coincided with relocation, and the departure of most of their staff. :(
In WB, for a long time, you have had to get close - 300 yards or less - any plane, any ammo, but especially the 109 whose cannon dropped sharply - low muzzle velocity? The 109E was very bad for this. The trouble was that in WB, so often you would suffer a LCD - lag collision death. Closing to 200 yards (with a bit of lag thrown in) meant that you were often much nearer. Couple that with the fact that in WB, if your wingtip comes within 10ft of the bogie's wingtip, you get blown up. :confused: :( :mad:
In AH, the F4U-1C cannon is effective beyond 600 yards. :eek: But the 109Gx needs to close to about 300 yards, preferably less.
-
I rarely fire from more than 350 yards.. I don't like to miss :)
-
Cyrano it suppose that a human is able to evaluate distance correctly ...
-
I'd love to see a graph of fighter hit percentage for the player base. Bell curve type format.
-
I do agree with Cyrano's post. I can't believe actual way of shooting in WWII was anywhere near AH's. Nothing in the books I've read suggest that a pilot can score regular hits over 500 yds., let alone 1k.
*Thumb!!!* <------ The proverbial kick to the dead horse.
-
Considering the AH is a game and WW2 was for real, Im quite happy with AH.
As it is, the game seems pretty well balanced out for overall....uhmm......gameplay, regarding ballistics at least.
I myself would prefer a bit more difficulty with gunnery, requireing a bit more effort on my part (and the guy shooting back/at me)but I have fun with it the way it is. AH a broad appeal game
(Fanboys beware, the following may set you aflame)
When I get the guns difficulty itch, I go try and kill stuff in IL2 ;)
-
CyranoAH:
What distance do you get most of your kills at?
What distance do you normaly open fire?
HiTech
-
Sure, Oed, sure.
But why can't I make everyone play the way I want them to play?
I hate this deal they do when I get behind them. They start turning and twisting, climbing and diving... really annoying.
Can't I have some "tractor beam" thing so that when I get them in my sight I can flip the beam on and it paralyzes them?
That would be kewl!
-
AH's ballistics are somewhat undermodeled. Bullets from most guns dissapear well within the maximum range they could do damage in.
The two things which make long-range gunnery in AH easy are the giant glowing hitsprites that show up through the plane, and the tracers which perfectly match the main guns ballistics.
More realistic hit sprites and tracers would dramaticly reduce it.
Edit:
HT, normally I fire within 400 yards, usually closer. However, kills at 800 yards happen often enough to be annoying, and aren't all that difficult.
I really like the idea of fading the hitsprites, it seems like (It could be anyways, depending on implementation) reducing the brightness of them could help a lot without any serious changes. Perhaps start fading them at 300, so they're completly gone by 500 yards..
-
Originally posted by Shane
i think maybe you need to fly a faster plane, or at least one that accelerates better.
:D
slobberdonkey lame-7 dweeb :D
In reality, I don't open fire until within 350 of the target. Usually it's even less than that, around the 250-200 mark. The only time I will fire at greater distances is when I'm lucky enough to come across a fighter on the deck who is flying level to extend. I'll fire a quick burst or 2 (up to 1.2k) to get his attention and attempt to force a turn. I've even gotten lucky once and managed to score a kill at that distance (apparently my round went right through the cockpit. Plane went boom).
-
Originally posted by Innominate
The two things which make long-range gunnery in AH easy are the giant glowing hitsprites that show up through the plane, and the tracers which perfectly match the main guns ballistics.
More realistic hit sprites and tracers would dramaticly reduce it.
My thoughts exactly :)
My proposal was just a simpler way of doing that (not redesigning the hit sprites but just making them disappear at a certain range).
HT, I get kills at a wide variety of distances... from 200yds or less in fighters to 900 in bombers or 1.8k in Ostwinds (done it several times :) )
I don't think there's anything terribly wrong with the gunnery model (check my first message), it's just that I think that implementing that change (I said 300yds but I could have said 500 or 600 as well) would see a dramatic reduction of the spray-and-pray types.
Daniel
-
the only people this change would affect would be newbies learning the game. I bet the vast majority of the experienced sticks in here do their killing
the rest is sour grapes because some people have still yet to learn to subtract ~200 from the distance of an enemy on their 6 to account for the net delay...hence the numerous claims of getting whacked at d800....900 yet not one film ever offered in evidence of HiTech's challenge to document it awhile back ;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
I'd love to see a graph of fighter hit percentage for the player base. Bell curve type format.
I'd like to see a graph of bullet-hits versus distance.
Originally posted by straffo
Cyrano it suppose that a human is able to evaluate distance correctly ...
The human eyes (two of them) are not able to distinguish distances beyond 100 yards (maybe even just 25 yards, not sure). At least surely not at 300, 500 or even 1k yards. It all looks like the same distance - distance can only be guessed by the known size of an object.
Originally posted by Zippatuh
I think it’s a bad idea and do not believe it would bring good things. Gunnery is already a very difficult thing to learn. Taking away the ability to know for sure hits are landing at long distances would create unnecessary difficulty to the game.
Shooting at 1k isn't really "learning gunnery", isn't it?
-
Originally posted by Hornet
the rest is sour grapes because some people have still yet to learn to subtract ~200 from the distance of an enemy on their 6 to account for the net delay...
I was curious about this myself as I was pretty sure AW lag made this distance difference so I conduct tests on a regular basis while flying formation with my squad. I look back and ask the guys behind me what yardage they see and it NEVER varies more than about 5% from what I am seeing and usually less than that. (20 to 30 yds. at 900 yds)
Just passing on some info for you all.
DEMAN
81st CO
-
I agree with Hornet I think it is a difference of perspective. The person being shot down might see D600... the person doing the shooting D400.
I can ping someone at D6 to D1000... but kills? Very rarely... I'm sure it has happened but I can recall it. You just annoy them at that range. Even if you can hit them, the damage is reduced.
I can't remember getting shot down from that range either.
Ammo costs nothing in the virtual sky... so pilots are not too concerned about saving it. My guess is the some pilots firing close in are more concerned with hit % than being realistic... regardless, to each their own.
What I feel is a bit different in AH, is that planes don’t appear to be traveling as fast as they are supposed to. When I am driving on a freeway… cars are coming pretty darn fast, and when they pass, a second later they are goooone. If I tried to turn and catch up…. even if I was faster… forget about it… it would take minutes. In AH you can turn after a merge and somehow they are right there. Now imaging going 300 on the freeway… merging at 600 mpg. It would be tough to spot and hit another car head on if you tried… one once it passes you… long gone. Again… in AH everything is like slow motion. I know the speedometer says 300mph… but if really feels like about 25. There are times when I am going about 200, and someone will swoop by at 400+… and when I turn they are long gone… well to me it feels like that should be the case more often. It is just a perception really… most of the gun footage I have seen shows one plane approaching another relatively slow, but I’d like to compare a HO in real life to what we see in AH.
-
we tested this claim in about d200+/- differences in fe. Its bs. as Deman said we never noticed more the 20-50 yrds. We had guys with cable dsl and dial up. None of them had d300 lag deals. Also its a 3d world why would lag only effect range and not general position. If theres d300 lag why arent there more collisions. I flew 109s with 30mm hub only and would fly in as close I could before firing.
Hornets folks have posted films in regards to that challenge. Theres was one that had a d1200 kill. I may still have the film, I will try and find it.
Also equating computer gunnery with rl in terms of "experience" is another bs arguement.
Long range gunnery has beeen discussed in ah since the day I got here. I remember folks going crazy when torque would pick umm off with d 1k snapshot.
Why does it seem that the effective kill range in these games are a further distances then real life? Who knows. Some say its hit sprits, range and counters, or the dm other say its just the nature of gaming.
The question comes down to does ht want rl physics and balistics or real life effects. No one can doudt that 50 cals or hispanos can do damage at these ranges. The only question is what allows this to happen in the game that wasnt there in rl.
Ultimately this arguement turns into 3 things
1 group says d600+ kills never happen
1 group says the ballistics and our gunnery skills allow it
the other group says its just a game.
-
Another big factor no one has mentioned. Turbulence! We get to fly around in a glass smooth atmosphere. I have read many accounts of WWII fighters saying how they got bucked around by other planes wakes even to the point of causing stalls and such. Even without "wakes" there would still be a bit of random bumpiness in the atmosphere, anyone who has ever flown knows that. I'm think this alone might account for maybe 50% of the accuracy we see in AH. Extreme Air Racing has a neat wake/turbulent effect, I wonder how hard it would be to implement.
-
I'll sure go with 2 out of those 3 and maybe all three with a slight modification.
1. "the other group says its just a game."
I am, most assuredly, right smack in the middle of this group.
2. "1 group says the ballistics and our gunnery skills allow it"
I'm in this group. Ballistics CLEARLY allow it. In fact, the case can be made that individual rounds DO NOT TRAVEL AS FAR in the game as they do in "RL". Gunnery skills? Again, what is the AVERAGE PLAYER hit percent? I'm guessing Joe Average shoots between 5-8%.
3. "1 group says d600+ kills never happen"
I'd say they happen but are not the COMMON kill. Additionally, there's that "previous damage" thing. Somebody whirls and swirls in a furious furball for 2 minutes taking a ping or three here and there from MG and/or Cannon. He survives and low on ammo he decides to RTB. As he egresses, somebody nails him with a short burst at 600. A wing comes off and he dies. The spew on Ch1 begins over the "bogus" kill.
Is it not possible, in fact likely, that this last burst was just "the straw that broke the wing spar's back"?
How many folks have had a "no previous damage" kill at 1k? 800? 700?
I think any honest person would agree that 600+ kills on a competent, maneuvering target that has NO PREVIOUS DAMAGE are rare in AH.
Now, if someone chooses to engage the A/P as they egress at 600 yards.....
-
Cyrano ...
There is no "golden" bullet to solving the "spray and pray" and the "HO" issue.
I believe that your proposal would promote even MORE "Spray and Pray".
Typically those that SnP are new flyers (I know that cause I was once new). If anything, I believe, that the hit sprites improve gunnery skills quicker, thus shortening the time that one must SnP to obtain a kill. Also, as new flyers progress thru the learning curve of getting into the "saddle", this too leads to less SnP.
-
I was curious about this myself as I was pretty sure AW lag made this distance difference so I conduct tests on a regular basis while flying formation with my squad.
Where and when were these tests conducted? If it wasn't done in the MA around 8pm eastern with 650 folks flying... then I think you can make a strong case for different conditions than say the TA on a sunday morning with 3 or folks flying around.
I don't pretend to know the intracacies of HTCs netcode, but a 1v1 in an empty sector seems to be intuitivley easier for the game to assign net update priorities for etc...
Again we return to the problem of anecdotal evidence. Someone's buddy got popped from 1.2 last night and now there's a gunnery problem...etc. But a quick browse of the connect forum shows there's some unaccounted for wierdness in the MA, it stands to reason that at least some of these gunnery anecdotes are probably a result of these same connection issues.
Tests or not, flying in peak hours when the MA is rocking, I just accept that the gremlins are going to be out crawlin on the netcode...and letting someone lurk d800 away in a firing solution and assume he's seeing what I'm seeing is rather risky.
-
HiTech's point is correct.
Long range kills, while possible, are NOT the norm in AH.
Even in AirWarrior, with it's famously simple gunnery model, most kills came at under 400 yards. It's just that the long-range kils, as uncommon as they are, get all the attention.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by Hornet
Where and when were these tests conducted? If it wasn't done in the MA around 8pm eastern with 650 folks flying... then I think you can make a strong case for different conditions than say the TA on a sunday morning with 3 or folks flying around.[/B]
These tests were done during our squad nights, Sunday after 8:00 P.M. E.S.T. in the MA, historicaly the busiest time and place possible.
DEMAN
-
I like the system in IL-2 even up close some times you cant tell if your hitting them. except when small pieces fall of.
Warbirds has this too, but Il-2 is better graphicly. Holes in plane part of plane structures exposed and so on.
-
toad looking at hit % wont tell you anything as new guys strafe buildings and the like.
I myself can get pics and films of kills with no dam at beyond 600.
I still have the one of Zigrat killing at d700 while he was in a yak 9t and I was pulling left and up.
Remember your haphazard use of the word "common" back in that old "Ho's are common and traditional thread" :) Why limit its meaning here :p
Hornet this topic just didnt pop up over night its been debated and talked about going way back.
I have flown in events where the concentration of aircraft in an area far exceeds the main and now where have I not seen d300 lag as you describe. I have scene individaul laggers but if d300 was normal then a guy a d1.2k my fe could really be d1.5k, or not really at my 12 or 6. If this was normally the game would be unpayable.
Anyway
YMMV
-
If planes are flying at the same speed next to eachother there surely isn't a big difference in what they're seeing.
If one plane is faster than the other and approaching, maybe even accelerating, probably is at least some difference. Did you test this case? How?
I would test this way: plane 1 is approaching plane 2 at high speed and fires a single shot at d500. plane 2 notes at what distance it sees the shot fired at. Same for the other case, 1 plane pulling away. Shouldn't be the distance for the plane lagging behind be even larger than the plane in front sees?
-
I think all the long range kills we get in AH are down to a few reasons but the biggie as far as I'm concerned is information. It is pretty much impossible to get the depth perception in a sim that you would get in RL, to make up for this we get the icons on aircraft that give us exact range information.
One fact that springs up in quite a few threads is that range was very often mis-estimated by pilots during RL combat and I assume that this would negativily affect their ability to hit a manouvering enemy target. The range icons we have leave us in no doubt as to how much we should be leading a target making gunnery at long distances a great deal easier.
After you've factored in some environmental conditions, (RL. G, temperature, turbulence, fear. etc), not modeled (please don't model fear HT, my life is hard enough already ;) ) and you end up with shots being able to hit at long range because lots of small things make shooting here a lot easier and of course the shear amount of practise we all get far exceeds what is availible to actual pilots.
I personally think it's fine the way it is. Artificially adding aspects to reduce the range at which kills are possible would be a negative step as has already been mentioned. Adding some RL things might be interesting but I'm sure should they be introduced one of 2 things would happen; 1. We'd learn to live with the new conditions and learn how to get long range kills under them. 2. We'd moan so much that it'd get turned off :D
Gatso
-
Slapshot, the empirical evidence of typical IL-2 multiplay environment shows us that people spray and pray when they know they can hit something, not because they are not sure whether they can hit something.
* If people aren't really confident about being able to hit something over 400, 500 yards they tend to not spray.
* If people cannot so easily confirm whether their shots landed or not, they tend to not spray.
* Also, when they know a few lucky shots won't bring down a plane, they tend to not spray.
....
* AH pilots know that they can hit something over 400 yards, even up to 600, and in some rare cases 800 yards and above.
* AH pilots can easily confirm their shots, and modify aim as needed, due to the generic hit sprites showing up in all ranges, and even through the cockpit.
* Furthermore, they know that if those few shots land, especially cannon rounds, it will knock out something due to the way damage is done in AH.
When people know that there is a good chance to land hits against an extending enemy, and they can confirm and modifiy aim easily, and even a few shots might be able to bring them down, especially in the case of the Hispano or Ho-5 cannon, they start spraying.
....
Some people have argued that "AH pilots are better skilled than their real-life counterparts". To some extent, that may be true. However, that argument, ironically, contradicts the other argument that "long range shots aren't common in AH either".
This overall "commoness" is governed by pilot skill range, and not limited by environmental factors. This means given some time to practice gunnery, everyone can achieve long range shots if they wanted to. I've met some terrific pilots in MA, and got shot down many times. Not all of those instances were "I totally made a mistake, and they were all over me, saddling up behind at 300 yards", and some of the kills they landed on me were on 500, 600 yard ranges, when I thought I bought time to extend away and regroup - mildly jinking, extending away. I am sure that they are skilled in gunnery, and didn't spray. They KNEW they could hit me if they wished to do so.
There is a great great deal of difference between "knowing there is a possibility of hitting something", and "being confident of hitting something"
There were terrific shots and aimers in real life, too. What prevented even them from confidently firing over long distances was the environment surrounding them, not their skill. Thus, the very fact that "higher skill allows longer range of successful gunnery" means that it's not realistic. (Of course, this little revelation won't affect people who have openly admitted that AH is more of a game than a 'simulation')
To put it in simple words, pilots who are confident of their skill shoot at 400, 500 yard ranges everday in the MA. They know they can damage, knock down, or at least land frequent hits on the target. Some of those 'infamous' N1K2 or Spitfire pilots are renowned for their 'sniping skills'.
Also, experience has taught newbies and dweebs that spraying and praying is indeed a worthy try, if they are in a plane too slow to catch the enemy, or have four cannons and hundreds of 20mms to shoot with. This happens everyday, every hour, every minute in the MA, and to say that "long range shots aren't really frequent" is, as others have eloquently put, "bull shi*".
......
I'm not exactly picturing an ultra-realistic, hardcore, standard-military level "simulator". But, I do belive that there is some areas that AH can be improved and changed. As previously mentioned, the chances of hitting the enemy should be governed by the surrounding environment, not pilot skill.
That brings us to another interesting view.
AH pilots are not more skilled than real-life pilots. It's just that the lack of some environmental aspects have allowed pilots of certain skill level and above to reach hit percentages higher than real life standards.
...
Not all of the environmental factors can be 'simulated', when we are comfortably in our homes, with our sticks and keyboards. But some of them can be simulated.
I'm suggesting that HTC consider changes in the two key factors I have suggested above: hit sprites and damage modelling. The latter would be a long, painful process, but it would be much, very much appreciated.
If AH pilots are really so better in gunnery than real life pilots, I don't see anyway this could harm the people already skilled in gunnery. They'll be able to achiveve kills in "the way they want" anyway. Thus, nothing will be changed for them.
ps) Or, maybe not? :)
-
Putting the lag testing aside, clearly some believe lag is not an issue, I still have my doubts both about the standards of the tests and the odd logic behind it that lag seems to affect everything in AH _but_ our effective gunnery ranges.
The root of the problem seems to be that some want AH to be a historical recreation of how these machines were fought and others want it to be a simulation of what these machines could actually do.
HTC's case is purely quantifiable numbers and AH calculating ballistics...while the argument for more realistic gunnery is based almost entirely on pilot anecdotes of "how it should be" and now recently on IL2. In my mind, HTC presents a more compelling case, particularly when you consider that computers are pretty well suited to crunching the ballistics stuff.
People may think hitting over 500 is arcadish..I think fudging the real numbers to artificially limit the equipment modeled in AH is more gamey.
To be fair, I think both sides should have to reserve judgement until HTC does their next pass on the damage model. I don't think the chaotic nature of damage plays to the computers strength and perhaps some of the *impacts* are simmed wrong...not the fact that impact was occuring at the given range. Apples and Oranges really. I'd rather have them both right than fudge one to simulate the other...which IL2 may have done to some degree.
I think AH players are always going to be above the historical curve. But I suspect with a 2nd pass on the damage model, and a simple change like removing the ammo counters that things would fall closer to the anecdotal expectations of the historical recreation argument.
-
Originally posted by Hornet
I think fudging the real numbers to artificially limit the equipment modeled in AH is more gamey.
Nobody wants to fudge the numbers. Just fix the places where AH is gamey. Glowing bullets instead of real tracers(i.e. exact same trajectory as the gun being used), and hit-sprites that are too bright at long ranges, which can be seen through the plane.
-
The guns will do it.
All the rest of it, hit sprites and the like, is either gameplay or conjecture.
As somebody said, it isn't like HT doesn't know exactly how all that stuff works. He put it in there.
I'm guessing that's the way he wants it.
So, your arguments need to sway im.
Somebody, Pyro I think, once posted that a lot of WW2 pilots underestimated their range too.
But y'all have a nice little rerun of this stuff. Enjoy.
-
My gunnery suks already bad enough.
-
Just had another thought.
Maybe you guys could get all icons off in the CT and maybe somehow HT could turn off or adjust hit sprites in there too.
Best of both worlds again. Everybody has a choice to get what they want.
Maybe that's a path.
-
Originally posted by CyranoAH
After reading this very interesting interview posted in the O'Club:
http://airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/golodnikov/index.htm
it becomes clear that most of the aces opened fire at extremely short distances compared to what we are used to in AH. The problem is that in RL one would not get hits and well... you know what happens here.
I know this has been discussed before, but here's an idea (dunno if someone already proposed it): why not only show impact flashes at distances of 300yds or less?
I mean, you can fire at whatever distance you want, but you won't know if you are indeed hitting your target if they are further away than 300yds.
I believe that would make people fire at shorter distances, hence making AH engagements more like the ones in RL.
Whatcha think?
Daniel
I'd like the flashes to get smaller as range increases, and to not be visible through the instrument panel. Basically make it look something like Il-2.
-
I open up at about 2500yds but get most of my kills around 400yds. Is this good or bad?:rolleyes:
Booky
-
Unrealistic range & feedback? What could be solution?
1. Lets tune down hit sprits vs range & caliber.
Good
2. Lets remove just range info from icon under 1k range.
Better
3. Combination of 1. & 2.
Best
Maybe in CT and/or Missoin Arena? HTC?
Finnish WW2 pilots want to shoot from very close ranges. Sometimes even at ~20m / ~22yard / ~65ft. It was better get real close than just close, because prop wash didnt disturb any more. FAF gunnery training teach to gain hits to the certain weak spots of the enemy plane, not just spraying & gain some general hits here and there.
Its Quality over quantity ie How to make 2 .50cals count like 8 .50cals :-))
BTW
Offline Gunnery pratice is fun... if you cant fly in online (moving). I attack droons from all possible angles with lo & hi speed. I try to gain hits with short & precise gunnery by using RAF 150yard ring gunsight for range measuring & lead estimating.
-
question to the audience of this thread :
Did someone been in the 6 of a prop plane at some 20 meter ? what is the impact of the "wake vortex turbulence" (turbulence de sillage in french)
-
Originally posted by straffo
question to the audience of this thread :
Did someone been in the 6 of a prop plane at some 20 meter ? what is the impact of the "wake vortex turbulence" (turbulence de sillage in french)
Salut Straffo,
I have been at that distance behind a prop plane but I did not experience significative turbulence. Of course it was a 160hp airplane with a light airframe, so I can't judge what would happen being behind a 8-ton airplane with a 1000hp engine :)
I think Frenchy can shed a little more light on this subject.
Daniel
-
"Captain H. Wind's Lectures On Fighter Tactics" from 1943
(http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/kuvat/ww2history-win01.jpg)
"When shooting from dead six, it is best to get about 20 meters from the enemy, where the prop-wash that was shaking your plane earlier settles down. It is like getting from "heavy seas" to a calm "backwater". It is very nice to shoot from the rear sides, and from there you most often shoot the enemy down, too. You should shoot in front of the armour into the cockpit and engine. The lead is also so small that it'll give you no trouble at all."
Read whole story from here (http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-CaptainWindsAirCombatTacticsLecture.html).
-
@XJazz
I was asking not because I was questionning the value of the testimony but because lot of people have trouble evaluating distances with accuracy.
@Cyrano
I've hear of horrible turbulence stories but it was in general a light plane like a 152 following an A300 for exemple ...
-
Originally posted by straffo
@Cyrano
I've hear of horrible turbulence stories but it was in general a light plane like a 152 following an A300 for exemple ...
LOL! Why would he get back there in the first place? :D
I have landed after a touch and go from a A320, but if you follow the standard procedure, with a steeper approach path and touching down further down the runway than the airliner you should find no noticeable turbulence.
Daniel
-
Just had another thought.
Maybe you guys could get all icons off in the CT and maybe somehow HT could turn off or adjust hit sprites in there too.
Best of both worlds again. Everybody has a choice to get what they want.
Maybe that's a path.
Sound reasonable.
Suggestions on hit sprites or other environmental factors doesn't necessarily mean it would be applied to all arenas. If it is implemented as an "option", I guess that would be enough.
ps) though, I must say suggesting more realism with the hit sprites is not the same thing as asking to do away with it totally.
Also, I found out that adjusting the icon size so very small, that you can see it, but not read the numbers or letters, can have some very interesting effect in flying. Maybe if the icon size was also given as an option that can be universally turned on/off or adjusted by a CM?
-
That Russian pilot also states that speed differences, at least relatively minor ones, were greatly overrated and that even slower planes like the I-16 had no problem breaking off an engagement whenever they wanted too. Sounds like the MA to me :) He also states that dispersion did become an issue, but he clearly notes it is with extended bursts. And, he noted that the performance of the LW aircraft seems to be overrated in history (probably because you get the feeling that minor performance difference of all types were not all that important in the broader mix of things in RL) :)
I guess I'm one of those who hasn't noticed any real ability to kill beyond 500m. in an American or British plane. However, I do notice a lot of aircraft that start to fly wings-level at about d700 and count on a 20 mph speed difference to gradually move away. If you're back there in a US fighter with 1000 rnds of .50, you literally have 10 seconds or more to plink away -- a little low, well, lets try this. No, a little higher -- look there's a hit sprite. Not a kill, (though the occasional lucky systems hit), and if he's smart he'll just keep on truckin’ instead of panic. How many pilots in WW2 would feel comfortable fling a lazy wings-level extension 700 yards away from an enemy shooting at them with real bullets? I had a Hellcat spray at me in this situation for tens of seconds without a hit, but I was doing slow 1/2 rolls with a low g pull to one side, then a slow half roll with a pull to the other. Not a single ping with just a small amount of effort, too small even to kill any E on my part. I really would like to see a film of someone chewing up a plane at these ranges vs. the occasional fatal systems hit, with convergence set at 300-400.
You can easily hit targets with a M2 .50 at 800+ range - I've done it myself. Perhaps the physics are correct, but the arena lacks things like fear, adrenaline, vibration, cold, etc. that would have been distractions in RL. The quality of gunnery was admittedly very poor during the war (Bong getting extra training after his first tour in the Pacific even), and much of the real close killing was done, it seems, where the armament dictated the style for both accuracy and killing power. I've seen plenty of gun camera film from the pacific that is 300 yards or more, including a good spraying deflection shot at that range on a Zero. At high altitudes in Korea, 600 yard kills were common.
What about locking convergence at 400 yards max? This would be realistic historically and would give less ability to be a sniper at extended ranges by setting a 500/600 yard convergence.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Also, I found out that adjusting the icon size so very small, that you can see it, but not read the numbers or letters, can have some very interesting effect in flying. Maybe if the icon size was also given as an option that can be universally turned on/off or adjusted by a CM?
S! Kweassa
Very good idea!
-
"How many pilots in WW2 would feel comfortable fling a lazy wings-level extension 700 yards away from an enemy shooting at them with real bullets?"
"That's it, spray dweeb, try it at 500 meters and see if you can get any hit on me, waste yer ammo!"
...
Well, Saburo didn't exactly use those words, but I think I'm in the right track :D
700 yards, in WWII standards, is a distance where kills will occur and be decorated in the journals, because that's some dang lucky pilot to kill something out at 700 meters.
-
Thats nothing big Charon, in a dogfight in the main speed only matters if you actually work at keeping up your speed.
In il2 this is true as well, fights are well below max speed and this is where accelleration make the difference.
Fighting a rata in il2 you arent going to do much making hi speed bore and zzzzzzzzzzz passes. He can avoid your you. You need to get aggressive. The slower more manuverable plane is counting on that.
Planes like the zeke, spit, niki 109f and others in ah get kills not as a result of speed.
So does top speed matter in a "fight"? No accelleration is much more important. Fighters in ww2 had cruise setting below max speed.
In ah guys who fly faster planes d9s, 51s, etc make an effort to keep up thier speed.
Mostly that speed is about 325 - 350.
As you can see from the replies in this thread you will have a tough time narrowing down what it is that allows for longer range gunnery. I dont expect ht to fix something that is undefinable. As I said before there isnt even any agreement on whether or not it happens.
Theres folks telling you they never see it happen. This discussion takes place once a month. Nothing new will come out of it.
-
Kweassa ... nice post !!!
But I am not buying the "empirical evidence of typical IL-2 multiplay environment".
* If people aren't really confident about being able to hit something over 400, 500 yards they tend to not spray.
I remember when I first started playing AH, that I was sprayin' and prayin' all over the place trying to effect the kill. I have flown with new players that exhibit the same behaviour. Also, a new player will have a hell of a time trying to "saddle up" on any experienced AH pilot and get positioned to less than 400 yds on the 6 position.
* If people cannot so easily confirm whether their shots landed or not, they tend to not spray.
Again .. from first hand knowledge and I see it everyday, this is not the case from my viewpoint.
* Also, when they know a few lucky shots won't bring down a plane, they tend to not spray.
One learns very quickly the damage that one 20mm round will inflict, so a new flyer in a N1K2 will spray and pray hoping to land that one luck shot. Also, one learns very quickly that a lucky shot could inflict enuff damage to the opposing plane so that its flight model is now porked and can move in for the closer kill.
Again, I speak from my own learning experiences and watching new pilots in our squads progress ... seeing hit sprites at all distances is a learning tool and the length of time that one relies on the spray and pray technique is lessened as the pilot becomes more experienced with ACM and gunnery.
-
Nice one, Kweassa. Real-life pilots didn't get to respawn and try all over again if they suddenly found their planes and bodies riddled by enemy fire. Therefore they had a really REALLY big incentive to try to avoid getting knocked out of the air. And they were flying to orders, not as they pleased - thus less opportunity to practice, more incentive to get it right. In MA's in games like AH, what is the downside in praying and spraying? Nothing vital, is one answer. In RL, if you didnt nail the other person you alerted them to your presence, giving them a chanc to nail you. Permanently. No respawn, no new account next week, just a wooden box 6ft under.
And personally, I don't think learning deflection shooting per se is terribly difficult, despite which I'm not a great shot in AH. Why? because I'm often simply outflown by better pilots who have better awareness of what my plane and theirs can do under the circumstances, and they do better at avoiding letting me get a GOOD line-up than I do at working my way into a situation where I can kill them. Straightforward deflection shooting, aye, that I can manage. Throw a plane around well, that too. Situational Awareness... oooh, there's my Achilles heel. I misjudge more often than is healthy for me, when in fighters (especially as I don't get much practice in 'em these days)
So, as long as the ballistics is modelled acceptably well, seems to me that the answer is for folks to fly in more realistic organised games like the special events in AH - and otherwise work on your SA.
If Ah lets people get deliberate long-range kills more than once in a blue moon, though, my first thought would be that something is amiss with the ballistics/damage modelling, unless those kills are always against large planes that didnt see them and didnt either manouvre or shoot back. Like buffs with their pilot using the bombsight. Really MUST get Otto into buffs in AH! :-}
Esme
-
Originally posted by Oedipus
However (in general regarding "realims") IMO most AH players in AcesHigh wouldn't be able to hack it if many WWII aircombat conditions were modelled. If HTC introduced a different type of icon, took away the awacs radar, eliminated suicide bombing, forced "pilots" to sign up for a squad and "obey" the C.O, order them to fly missions they wouldn't want (versus what they used to do: bombing, jabo or dogfighing) and have them fly planes other than the Spit/La7/NiK2 and you could say "bye bye" to probably 80% of the players.
I agree 100%, but it makes me wonder about the prognosis for the Mission Arena. :confused:
-
I have a film where I shoot a B17 with p47-d30 from d1.3 and paint him white untill he falls apart. That's 4-5 long and aimed shots.
Long distance shots are extremely easy (compared to real life)with .50 and they're easy ONLY because every hit gives a huge hit sprite like you hit him with a cannon.
I say remove hit sprites from distances beyond the range you can be expected to detect hits in real life. Cannon sprites are ok since they created heavy flashes in reality. At least when they hit something solid to detonate on surface.. If the shell penetrated the hull before detonation there might again be very little visual info about the hit.
-
Longest hit sprite I have ever personally had was 1.2 against a non-maneuvering target.
Was the B-17 maneuvering? I'll wager he was not. Beyond that, 1.3 is well inside max effective range for a .50 BMG, which is generally given as ~ 2000 yards.
-
I think 2 things add up to allow the long range sniper kills in AH.
And its not the physics.
1. Hit sprites that stay the same size at any distance.
2. No turbulence to affect my gunnery. ie I just point and shoot with perfect line up accuracy. If atmospheric turbulence was modelled even in a minor way, then I might not be such a sniper.
-
There are many aspect of ballistics that are not modeled in this game. Cross wind being but one of them.
Typically, a .50 cal BMG round will drop 22 ft. at 1,000 yards. A 10 mph cross wind will move the bullet about 3 ft at 1,000 yards.
Increasing the temperature or altitude will increase the ballistic coefficient. Increasing the barometric pressure decreases the ballistic coefficient. It has the same effect as going down in elevation. Ballistics change with altitude and temperature. Is this modeled? Hardly.
On a whole, the accuracy of hand-aimed guns is far beyond reality. Most of these guns employ a ring and bead sight. These guns were NEVER zeroed after disassembly or repair. In many cases, the sights could be off SEVERAL DEGREES!!! There is also no risk of over-heating a gun. You can shoot without stopping until the gun(s) are empty.
What we have here is an over-simplified ballistics model, and laser accuracy far beyond that of the actual weapons. Maybe that's why this is called a game. :D
My regards,
Widewing
-
Widewing Density and Wind are both modled.
HiTech
-
HT.. how can we confirm that?
If we set the wind speed very high, and make it blow from the east, will the bullets land to the left to the center of the bull's eye, brought up by '.target' command??
Wait.. maybe I can just try it myself :D
-
Hmm looks like both offline play and film viewer are porked in 1.11
-
Originally posted by hitech
Widewing Density and Wind are both modled.
HiTech
Then I stand corrected. ;)
Can I assume that you have Standard Day, sea level ballistic coefficients for each type of round?
Also, has anyone ever seen any of the dispersion cone studies for hand aimed .50 cal. BMGs, done by the Army early in 1942? I recall that the dispersion cone was measured at 22 feet at 500 yards. This was caused by recoil of the weapon. I saw one of these studies several years ago, but cannot remember specifically where.
My regards,
Widewing
-
And the wingspan of most fighters is in the 30-40' range isn't it?
-
Originally posted by Toad
And the wingspan of most fighters is in the 30-40' range isn't it?
Okay, let's assume that we have a 44 diameter dispersion cone at 1,000 yards. Let's drop a fighter with a 30 ft. wingspan into that circle (something along the size of the Bf 109).
What is the total frontal area of the 109, 40 square feet (probably much less than that)?
So, we have a total dispersion area of 1,521 sq/ft, into which we place an aircraft of 40 square feet frontal area.
Now if the gunner (let's say it's the pintle gun on an M3) has absolutely perfect aim, and correctly accounts for ballistic drop and windage, he can expect to see an average of 2.6% of his bullets hit the 109. Should he fire 200 rounds (a 15-20 second burst, mind you), that adds up to 5 rounds scoring on the fighter. Moreover, those hits will be completely random.
Let's look at a more realistic amount of rounds fired, based upon 750 rnds/min. The gunner fires for 2 seconds, that's 25 rounds. Multiply that by 2.6% and you can expect an average of 0.65 hits!! Rounded up, that means one (1) bullet strikes the 109!
Yet, in the game, wings get shot off as often as not. Now, how is that possible?
See why this is frustrating?
My regards,
Widewing
-
And if one catches an aircraft in planform? Like when he's pulling into the vertical? And if the shooter has 8 .50's on a Jug banging away instead of pintle gun?
I'm not totally dismissing your argument at all. You make some good points. It's just that there's too many claims of "impossible" getting tossed around here since day one of beta.
My position is that the range of probably all the airborne guns here is undermodeled. You never get pinged past ~1.2 and the tracers in fact just disappear.
I'm not saying you should get lots of hits at long range. But given the amount of rounds fired here, you'd think now and then there'd be 2.0 pings.. not real damage, just pings.
That and cumulative damage. Some guy gets a kill with a short burst at 1.0 and yells "impossible", when it may well be that the target had been hosed several times at close range in a furball and was rtb to get a new plane due to damage.
Now, to the point. Yeah, I think the GV anti-air capability is umm.... umm... extremely good. One might say waaaaaaaaaaaay to good. For lots of reasons. Main one being it'd take one crazy mother to stand up exposed and man his .30 as a Typh rolled in on him with 20mm's blazing. Gunner kills? Do they even happen?
However, I view it as just another gameplay concession for the GV crowd. Again, it's not like HT doesn't know how good the pintle guns are. So, that must be how he wants it.
Me? You could take all GV's out of the game and I'd view it as an improvement. but that's just me. If folks want to GV, good on 'em. I just stay away from 'em unless I'm packing suitable ord for them. If you don't have rocks and/or 1k's the deck is totally stacked in their favor.
My .02.
-
Widewing, depends on how you are caculating a coef, lots of different ways to get the same results. You can assume a standard atmosphere for bullet caclations. And drag will change as you change altitude.
Wind will not come out the same as on the ground because you are moving right along with the wind, and so is the target. Therefore from your perspective in a fighter there isn't any wind.
But now shoot from the side guns of a b17, and you can see the wind effects.
As for dispersion, bring up the target and see what the dispersion is for any gun.
HiTech
-
hitech how do you turn off the .targetxxx graphic after you are done playing with it?
-
.target 0
-
thanks
-
whats the scale of the target rings?
-
10 Ft Radius.
HiTech
-
I think the gunery is here is escellent for a game. Imaigne if
you play for 2 years and get only 7 kills in AH? in real life
you would be an ace. Tghing is, if you make a mistake, you
are at a greater risk of dying. It was a fool indeed, in WW2,
who thought, 'jeez, dispersal coefficient gravitated by the
prostdigitation of the gravity reversal means I can set up
on this b17s tail, cuz he can only hit me with .069 bullets per
second.' The plane that sets up on the tail of a b17 genearlly
dies in AH and generally was shot down in WW2.
The fact that the tactics required here to kill buffs while
minimizing the risk to the fighter, are quite similar, if not
precisely the tactics described by buff killers in WW2.
That would tell me that the modleing is at least scaled
to realism while allowing for exciting gameply.
Anybody remember AW's gunnery. now there was some barnyard physics for ya.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
I think the gunery is here is escellent for a game. Imaigne if
you play for 2 years and get only 7 kills in AH? in real life
you would be an ace. Tghing is, if you make a mistake, you
are at a greater risk of dying. It was a fool indeed, in WW2,
who thought, 'jeez, dispersal coefficient gravitated by the
prostdigitation of the gravity reversal means I can set up
on this b17s tail, cuz he can only hit me with .069 bullets per
second.' The plane that sets up on the tail of a b17 genearlly
dies in AH and generally was shot down in WW2.
The fact that the tactics required here to kill buffs while
minimizing the risk to the fighter, are quite similar, if not
precisely the tactics described by buff killers in WW2.
That would tell me that the modleing is at least scaled
to realism while allowing for exciting gameply.
Anybody remember AW's gunnery. now there was some barnyard physics for ya.
I took the time yesterday to sit down with Mr. James Miller, who flew 57 combat missions with the 398th Bomb Group in B-17s during 1944. Jim was a waist and later, tail gunner. After his tour was complete, he returned to the States where he was assigned as a gunnery instructor. Few people alive today know the Browning .50 caliber machine gun and its use, function and accuracy better than Jim.
After the war, Jim earned a degree in mechanical engineering and started his own company, which today is the leading high tech division of the CIRCOR International conglomerate. Jim retired as company President in 2001 at the age of 80. Currently, he is building a small single-engine amphibian in his barn, he also owns and flies a Cessna 172. He is a long-time member of the Experimental Aircraft Owners Association. Last summer Jim and his wife (a highly respected attorney) spent two months hiking the mountains of Nepal, living on the local economy. To state that Jim is a remarkable man is a gross understatement.
We discussed issues, such as bullet dispersion, sights and sight accuracy. In his opinion, any gunner obtaining hits on a fighter at ranges of 1,000 yards or greater could attribute it to “dumb luck.” He stated that, “the tail gunner had a good chance to damage a German fighter once the range dropped below 5 or 6 hundred yards, assuming that the German is closing from behind.” However, he also stated that, “very few fighters attacked level from behind. Usually, they would dive in, roll over and go down through the box.”
So, being shot down by a single burst at 1,400 yards is improbable?
“Closer to impossible.”
What do you think of my simple analysis of shot dispersion?
“Dispersion varied from gun to gun and from mount to mount. In some cases it was much better than you show, and in other cases much worse. Many factors affected accuracy. What was a nice tight gun mount on the ground, might loosen up exposed to the –30 (degrees) temperature soaking. Gunner accuracy also declined as the temperature went down due to mechanical and physical difficulties associated with flying at high altitude in an unpressurized and unheated bomber.”
What about hit probability?
“I suspect that your numbers are close to reality, based upon my experience.”
What about the gun sights used .50 caliber MG? How accurate were the sights?
“You know that we had this big ring, and it was never accurately aligned to the gun’s bore.”
Meaning?
“Meaning that you used it only for reference, you shot based upon what you determined was the proper lead.”
What about wind?
“You’re an experienced sailor (sailboats), so you understand the difference between apparent wind and true wind, right?”
Right.
“Does the game’s programmer understand what apparent wind is?”
Good question, I don’t know for sure, but I would assume that he does. But, wind doesn’t exist in the game except at specific altitudes.
“Why is that?”
I can’t say.
I asked Jim if he was ever awarded any kills, he said that, “ I put in two or three claims of fighters damaged, I never claimed any shot down.”
Why?
“I was certain that I didn’t do enough damage to claim any shot down. But, some guys put in claims for everything they fired their guns at.”
Were these confirmed?
“Usually, yes.”
Why?
“Morale.”
Morale?
“You have to remember that your chances of finishing a tour weren’t terribly good. Everything possible to keep morale high was done or tried. Awarding kills was an easy way to keep morale up. Although I believe that most of the boys knew it was a sham. Don’t misunderstand me, a lot of Germans were shot down by gunners, but only a fraction of those for which victories were credited.”
Maybe we could discuss your experiences in greater depth some time?
“Sure, give me a call at home, if I’m not around leave your number with Rey.”
My regards,
Widewing