Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: hazed- on October 09, 2001, 09:11:00 AM
-
Ok im a little bit worried :) about gun dispersion test i ran.
using aircraft that i could sit on the runway and fire at 200 yards which im sure you'll all agree is closer than we would generally set our convergence at, but should show a very limited spread in bullets as its so close.
try this yourselves:
P38 converg 200 target at 200 fire entire ammo load.
you will get a small box and strangley the pattern makes a definate + shape of dense bullet strikes inside a PERFECT square spread.
now try it with me262 with same 200 yard conv and you will see a circular pattern with no discernable pattern.some bullets are almost twice the distance from the centre as any 50 cal on the p38.
now i realise the 30mm would have a bigger 'kick' than the 50cal but SHOULD we really see this much difference at 200 yards?
Now im NOT demanding change , id just like to know if this is how it should be?
Im no gun expert but the perfect square from the p38 does appear to be set so it doesnt spread any further than a small square.Does it have something to do with the vibration effect we had added?
I tried to fly and test this but there is always small movement even with auto level so its very hard to make proper comprisons.
Could we please have a shooting range? one where the aircraft is put on a stand like they did in the war to set up the guns?
PLEASE :)
anyway try these tests, the perfect square with dense + is a little strange.
-
Will go try, will compare some other planes and guns too.
-
you want to see dispersion?
try the 190a5 with mg/ff's
convergence at 300 yards.....very wide pattern :o
[ 10-09-2001: Message edited by: pugg666 ]
-
Hazed please do all testing in flight. You will get different results.
HiTech
-
"you will get a small box and strangley the pattern makes a definate + shape of dense bullet strikes inside a PERFECT square spread"
Hitech, I did the same tests, in FLIGHT.Same results
The guns make a CROSS pattern on the bullseye... just like the cross pattern of the default gunsight.
[ 10-09-2001: Message edited by: Tac ]
-
addendum: does the same in p-38 and p-51 and P-47.
Put the B-pony guns at 150 convergence, target at 300 range, it makes TWO boxes with the + shaped thing at each side from the aiming point. (Yes I know its because of convergence, duh. Just pointing this out because TWO guns on each wing traveling at a supposed angle make the same pattern on the bullseye).
-
OK I have redone the tests inflight with 3 very similar planes in terms of loadout.
F4Uc 4x20mm set at 200 converge
TYPHOON 4x20mm set at 200 converge
190A8 4x20mm set at 200 converge
all tests done with auto level on.
and i threw in the me262 just for fun :) set 200 yrds cnvrg
all produced the same box like pattern only the typhoon really lost the cross shape of higher density hits and as far as i could see this was due to a slight rise in climb for prolonged bursts.
Hitech each was performed by flying level aimed directly at target at 200 and i have to say it I feel im in error when i felt the LW 20mm seemed to spray or disperse more!
I must now admit the patterns are very similar at 200 yards. even the 30mm shows as good(almost) as the 20mm and that would only seem totally accurate as they are larger weapons with more kick.I even did the same test with 600 converg and 600 target with f4uc,typhoon and fw190a8 4x20mm and the pattern whilst more spread showed all 3 aircraft have similar if not identical shot dispersion.
Sorry HTC this was a post done without checking evidence properly and my appologies for questioning dispersion of LW stuff a few months ago.Seems frustration of poor shooting accounts for my poor judgement.
The pattern is rather strange though, is it a possible bug or intentional?
p.s. HTC I have pics of all tests but i cant post any.I can email if needed.
[ 10-09-2001: Message edited by: hazed- ]
-
I'm going to do Fw 190D-9 vs. Spit IX when I get home, because a few months ago I swear there was a huge difference in the dispersion patterns between those two.
-
Havn't run the test yet, also try when not on auto.
HiTech
-
I tested all of these planes and the guns on the B17 and B26. I did not have that great of dispersion. The center was shot out of the circle at 200 400 and 600 with convergence set at 525. On the guns on the bomber I had the expected lag but when you lead the target could put them all in the second circle. I am running an AMD 800, GEFORCE 2 64MB, Soundblaster live, 320 meg of 100 ram. I have downloaded and installed DirectX 8.1 and it stopped the crashes and computor lock-ups when you get shot down and land on your tail.
Hope this helps someone, thanks to whirl....
ab8aac out
[ 10-09-2001: Message edited by: all american chickenman ]
-
I noticed something strange... a large number of impacts at the target are double impacts... I mean, there are a lot of "holes" apearing one just over the other and very close, always at the same distance one from the other, and at the same respective position, like this ---> : (I don't know how to explain it in english :D).
It can be seen if you look at the target very close, using F5 or bringing the target to 100 yards and using the zoom. Why does this happens?
-
1. It might help if those doing the testing took screenshots. If you need a place to post them, email 'em to me.
2. HT, I'm confused. I understand it may be better to do it in flight, but if we don't use auto trim level, how can we get a steady platform? If we are hand flying, then control movements will screw up the results. ?
-
With auto on Leph , the auto will also make some paterns do to its compensation to recoil effects.
HiTech
-
Tested the 190D9 last night, for the life of me I could not see where those claims of the cannon shells dropping too much or having too much dispersion came from...
Looked just as good as the 190A5.
-SW
-
Without any kind of autotrim ht, it still does the + pattern.
Took off offline, had 38 on "X" until its nose stopped moving on level, took off autopilot, took off combat trim, nose moved a little bit, manually trimmed the elevs till the nose did not move any more.. and fired the .50's.
Bullets made a little box of black dots, then after 100 rnds had gone out, the black + started to form, I was firing with keyboard so as to not touch the j-stick.
-
hehe, go test the Hurri IId's 40 mms in flight. LOL recoil from those puppies knocks you all over the place.
I didn't notice perfect crosses with my hellcat, but I'll retest this evening with the entire ammo load. I was actually just looking at convergence (settled on 350 I think...) Worked well, good concentrated fire under 400yds, and still can spray that Runstang that's 600yds away. LOL
-
2. HT, I'm confused. I understand it may be better to do it in flight, but if we don't use auto trim level, how can we get a steady platform? If we are hand flying, then control movements will screw up the results. ?
I still don't understand why it is better to do this test flying.
Why not a tool you can use in the hangar that displays a chart right in the crosshair of your gunsight at the distance you select?
I mean why introduce unpredictable parameters to the test?
-
Originally posted by Apar1:
I still don't understand why it is better to do this test flying.
Why not a tool you can use in the hangar that displays a chart right in the crosshair of your gunsight at the distance you select?
I mean why introduce unpredictable parameters to the test?
If you do the test flying, hands on the stick it will really represent what
ACTUALLY happens and not something that just shows what guns will do in a fixed environment. In other words, yes, the guys with the steady hand is going to have a better, or at least, tighter pattern. It sure makes sense to me :)
(http://home.att.net/~lmluper/markatsig.jpg) (http://www.jump.net/~cs3)
[ 10-10-2001: Message edited by: Mark Luper ]
-
I need to make a correction on my post. teh addition of DirectX 8.1 stopped all of the freeze-up, lock-up EXCEPT going in tail first. I discovered shortly after 1.08 that if I could bail out before I hit the ground there was no lockup, I related this to the squad I'm in and we use it all the time. It appears that the lockup has something to do with the grafic resolution code of the crash going into a loop.
ab8aac out
-
If you do the test flying, hands on the stick it will really represent what
ACTUALLY happens and not something that just shows what guns will do in a fixed environment. In other words, yes, the guys with the steady hand is going to have a better, or at least, tighter pattern. It sure makes sense to me
SO why do we have to do it in auto level or not? There are many factors that effect gun pattern on a target from guns fired from a moving target. Testing it in one in-flight parameterset doesn't say much for all other in-flight variations at all.
If the in-flight gun dispersion is "big" and you don't know whether the basic gun dispersion of that gun on a stable platform is within certain limits (normaly definted in operation requiremends for a weapon system) than that in-flight test doesn't tell me whether this in-flight dispersion could be caused by in-flight errors (recoil, plane vibration, control surface deflections, etc.)
Before i do in-flight gun dispersion tests I would like to know the standard gun dispersion to start with (and bullet drop and convergence spread at different target distances for a range of convergence settings)
[ 10-11-2001: Message edited by: Apar1 ]
-
I guess I'm confused. I expected to put the pipper on the center of the target and see the pattern form "below the center circle." I expected to see how much the rounds dropped.
If we knew the radii of the various circles differed by say, 10 yards, then we could gain information about round ballistics.
AKcurly
-
apar i think hitech wants it tested 'in flight' because all 'parameters' as you say are simulated and therefore would introduce more corrections to the path of the bullets is my guess.
If we had real world air physics in AH perfectly down we would only need to test on the ground,knowing they will behave perfectly in the air.As we have a simulated 'air' we have to test in there too to make sure its not doing something completely different to the ground fired weapon.I suspect HTC would rather work on the aspect which is the most commonly used in AH, ie in the air (thus taking into account all of the programme ie vibration coding etc).HTC is this why?
hehe, we keep forgetting that everything in AH is simulated by code.All behaviour, of every object is the result of a calculation and a program to produce 'simulated' behaviour to match what we know is the real one.When the real world data isnt there its best guestimate time.I often assume the air we fly in is just there like RL, not a programme! :) DUH!!
[ 10-12-2001: Message edited by: hazed- ]
-
Curly the rounds do drop, but if you set the target range at convergence they hit the bullseye. If you set convergence at say 350, and then set target range at 650, when lined up on the bullseye you bullets will hit low.
The rings are 3ft apart
SKurj