Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Rapace on May 15, 2003, 03:46:54 AM
-
Will the AHII Gunnery be as ridiculous as the current one?
According to me the thing this game ruins is Gunnery they do of the draws from unbelievable distances ...
I hope that the thing is revisited ... ;)
-
2hawks made a good point in another post.
In WWII Fighter pilots fresh at the front my have only fired his guns once or twice.
They may or may not have had a towed target, shot at some fixed point, or in some cases, opened up on the ocean.
In Aces High even moderate pilots have years & years of playing under their belts.
If you were able to tell me how many rounds of ammo I've expended since AH started it would be a huge amount.
Of course people with that kind of skill level are going to get some hits & therefore some kills at extreme ranges.
Ussually its the Turbolazer Hispano's that make those long hail mary shots.
So before you go critiquing the gunnery & damage models. Take skill level's into account.
Some of these guys are just plain good.
They'd make Bong look like a 2 week trial dweeb.
-
Currently the gunnery allows the "hail mary shots" because of the laser rangefinder.
No other reason. Skill only allows the "experienced" pilot to know how much to raise nose when it reads "D900" compared to "D800".
-
I used to watch the range before firing, now i just fire when it feels right.
Experience nothing more.
-
Originally posted by OIO
Currently the gunnery allows the "hail mary shots" because of the laser rangefinder.
No other reason. Skill only allows the "experienced" pilot to know how much to raise nose when it reads "D900" compared to "D800".
Once...Im only going to say this on this threat ONCE
The "laser rang finder" is a concesion made to help with the fact that we get ZERO, NONE, NO, NADA info on range using the current computer hardware. You cannot say to look at the size....because a large plane at 500 looks like a small plane at 300 in the game, but in real life....I can tell if its a pickup truck 1/4 mile away or a semi 1 /2 mile away. At anything but extreemly close ranges (under 300 for sure), there is too little info on screen to make any kind of distinction. You also get NO DEPTH PERCEPTION, and so what is obvious in real life is very hard to determin in the game.
-
I don't get it, could you repeat that?
-
Originally posted by Rapace
Will the AHII Gunnery be as ridiculous as the current one?
According to me the thing this game ruins is Gunnery they do of the draws from unbelievable distances ...
I hope that the thing is revisited ... ;)
Provide proof that the gunnery model is "ridiculous".
Proof is not that IL2 seems more real.
-
I was thinking of this subject while getting ready for work this morning. Funny.
There are a few factors that, so far as I know, are not modeled in AH that had a detrimental impact on WWII gun accuracy.
1) Air turbulance is not modeled. Because we have just about the cleanest flying environment imaginable we do not have to worry about the vagaries of the air currents and eddies throwing our aim off.
Due to the incredibly complex and intensive nature of modeling air currents it is not possible to simulate this. It may be possible to fake it, but I do not know how. Hopefully HiTech has ideas.
2) The ridgidity, or lack of ridgidity, of the gun mounts are not modeled. I don't have hard numbers for this and I doubt hard numbers exist. I do know that wing mounted guns were noticably less accurate because they would torque the wing. How badly they would do so would vary depending on the strength of the wing in that direction and the kick of the gun. Spitfire wings, for example, torqued noticably when the Hispano cannons were fired. The British noted that the fuselage mounting of the Whirlwind and Mosquito was far more accurate than the wing mounted cannon on the Hurricane, Spitfire and Typhoon and attributed it to wing flexing.
I think this might be something that could be modeled.
3) Turbulance generated by the target is not modeled. When attacking from 6 'oclock, or nearly so, the wake of the target creates turbulance that makes shooting harder. This is especialy true of big aircraft like B-17Gs and Lancasters.
I think this might be able to be modeled or faked convincingly, but as it only affects a limited number of attacks it would not always have an effect.
4) Guns and gun mounts on bombers seem to lack recoil and offer perfect stability. The gun turrets on bombers were not mounted in concrete and the kick from even rifle calibre guns, let alone 50 cals or 20mm cannon, made these weapons inaccurate to say the least. Hand aimed guns suffered even more from kick induced inaccuracy.
I think this would be the easiest to add, but without adding the others, at the very least 2 and 3, this would merely make bombers utterly helpless in the face of super accurate fighters.
All that said, I do know of a 800-900 yard intentional kill using low ammo quantities from a Spitfire Mk V against a fleeing Italian aircraft by George Buerling.
-
I don't support the 'we have more experience theory'.
The difference really shows when IL2 series and AH is compared.
Both got range finders.
Both boast accuracy and realism in their ballistics models.
.. and yet, people can't hit jackshi* over 300 meters in IL-2 series games, but people snipe off targets upto 600~700 yards in AH.
Why?
-
Oedy, true, even in IL-2 or FB the expert players can and will, shoot ranges over 300 meters. But even so, their concept of "long range shots" is something like a 500 meter kill with a lucky big cannon shot(and a BIG cannon, for that matter - a MK103 or a MK108, or those soviet 45mms... sniping off wings and tails with .50s or 20mms?? Never).
The vast numbers of people ranging from average to decent pilots won't try to shoot over 300 meters, because they know it's most likely waste of ammo. (Since the stability of the planes overall increased in FB, the average distance is 200 meters or so. In IL-2, it was even worse..)
The only real discussion about weaponery in IL-2 or FB is the ability to do critical damage(such as the noted 'bug' instances of MK108s not doing correct damage and stuff..) - almost never about ballistics. Because, the ranges the weapons are fired, like in real life, are relatively close ranges that ballistics don't really show any difference.
Only when the range is unbelievably far, is when ballistics differences begin to matter, which I think, is the case with AH.
You don't hear people whining about Hispanos in FB(well, many people are astounded by its power, but nothing, like in AH 'Hizooka whine'.. ) In AH? I hear "bullshi*!!! You spray dweeb!" venting everyday.
Perhaps some things are extreme in IL2 and FB, but in that sense, so is AH. Though Il2 or FB doesn't necessary have to be a role model for AH, but at least there are somethings which should be noted with keen interest, I think. And AFAIK, they don't do any sort of 'nerfing' in anything.
-
The only thing that sucks are the BIG hit sprites. Little Puffs for HE ammo, and nothing or little sprites from the plane falling off if u hit with normal bullets.
Thats how it should be. These Huge hit sprites are Sega Style.
-
Damn it freeze, i was gonna say something about the fireworks.
Btw, the ammount of damage bullets do in il2 is, IMHO, too weak.
-
Yes but at least u cant tell in IL-2 if u hit for sure or not. If u shooting regulary non Exploding bullets u only see little parts falling of and u cant tell how bad ur hits are.
In AH every bullet that hit u can tell exactly. That should be chnaged. Also in AH only essential parts falling of the plane. I would like to see little fragments come off when u score a hit.
-
ALF, the current rangefinder gives the exact distance. You cannot go out on the street and say "Gee, that truck is 843 feet away from me!".
A far better range system would be WW2OL's. It doesnt tell you exactly how far away it is, but it will tell you if its far or close and if its closing or getting away.
Just so you realize how much you rely on the exactness of the laserangefinder icon, get on someone's 6, and turn OFF your icons when you're inside d1.0. Without the icon you will miss a cheeseload of shots , even though the fricken con is filling your sights. And why? Because you know those LW cannons on the 190 need to be *just* that higher above a target at d300 to hit it, but they need to be *just* a tad higher than that at d400. Without the exact laserangefinder, you will find yourself aiming at the d300 point when con is at d400.
-
Well Rapace,
I've been playing this game since beta tour 2 and I think the answer to your problem is only one:
MARKETING
In the beginning AH was intended to become a WW2 air combat sim - I remember discussions on this forum like this: AH a game or a sim?: the flight model was different, with less E-retention and without the combat trim, gunnery wasn't so Laser-similar, no perk planes and so on, but the result was that the arena was empty compare to actual numbers. Then HT and his company made the decision to increase the playability and reduce the fee: it was an important and right decision for the company and the results are in the actual numbers. But on the other side now the question is changed: IS AH A GAME OR AN ARCADE? I'm afraid is more and more arcade than in the past. :(
I am a sales man so I can understand HTC reasons but can also understand people complaining about the incredible gunnery of this game and its 900 yards shots (even 1K+ made by bombers), the starwars-like FM of spitfires or n1k, the continous vulch festival etc... so I hardly hope AH2 to return to the past, even in the fee if necessary, but with less arcading and more realism.
I love this game, AH community,Rooks in particulart, and all above are only suggestios for a better future to this game.
Bye
Michele
-
I agree Michele to 100% ....
I heartily hope that Ah2 is different !!!!!
-
Originally posted by Michele
the starwars-like FM of spitfires or n1k,
:rolleyes:
What exactly is wrong with AH gunnery ? Could you provide some data ?
No, of course you can't .
Effective ranges of weapons in AH are shorter than they are in real life . Muzzle velocity of weapons in AH reflects that of the real life weapons, as does the projectile trajectory, as does the dispersion of fixed guns . Wind also affects trajectory. So does the air speed of the aircraft doing the shooting .
-
Effective range in regards to a2a guns means the range at which the average pilot could fire and be reasonably assured of landing hits.
Effective range doesnt mean the furthest range at which a bullet can travel and do damage.
The "effective range" of most ww2 guns was 250 - 300m.
The US and Brits (early on) chose guns (50s and 303s) that had a flat trajectory which increased hit probrability at a given range. But a flatter trajectory means a higher muzzle velocity which also means higher dispersion. This offsest some of the increased hit probrability.
As Tony Williams has stated no gun was chosen because of its long range hit damage. @ 250m there was really little difference in the amount of damage 50s or 303s could do (or any round). As a matter of fact the brits stayed with the 303s even after evaluating the 50 cals. They could carry more ammo and more guns and they had a higher rate of fire. As the war progressed planes had added armor this is when the 50 proved superior to the 303. However the brits by this time had settled on the hispano.
Recoil (or gun shake) is also a factor. With the Hispano the whole gun moved with recoil. The mg/151 recoil was internal.
The US had copied the german mg151/15 and evaluted it for use in US planes. But the complicated manufacturing of the gun and the amount of work to replace all the 50s made it impractical.
Muzzle velocity of weapons in AH reflects that of the real life weapons, as does the projectile trajectory, as does the dispersion of fixed guns . Wind also affects trajectory. So does the air speed of the aircraft doing the shooting .
But you over look 1 important part. Each round contributes to the "hit points". Theres been a debate in AH on whether rounds that rely of chemical energy (mg/ffm and the type 99 mk1s) get short changed because of the lower velocity.
Both Types fired the same projectiles - it was only the cartridge case length which differed. See: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Oe1b.jpg
The Type 99-1 was the Oerlikon FF (20x72RB), the Type 99-2 the Oerlikon FFL (20x101RB).
The question of the effect of velocity on the damage inflicted by an HE shell is an interesting one, and not entirely clear. You have to remember that HE shells (with the partial exception of the M-Geschoss) did not damage by blast effect alone, but by a combination of kinetic and blast effects. The blast broke up the shell and sent fragments flying through the target, so the faster the shell was going when it hit, the faster the fragments would travel through the target. Also, not all HE shells had instant fuzes; in fact the most effective had delay fuzes, to give them time to smash their way into the structure; again, muzzle velocity helps here.
For a longer discussion of this subject, see: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm
As you will see, the 20x72RB scores 12 for destructive effect, the 20x101RB scores 15. That is, however, only an estimate.
originally posted by Tony Williams in this thread
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=81396
Let me put it this way: when Spitfires were first armed with two 20mm cannon, the RAF was annoyed because gun bay restrictions prevented them from converging the guns any closer than 300 yards - they wanted 200!
I'm afraid that long-range shooting seems to be one area in which sims remain unrealistic.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
again from Tony in this thread
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=71114
Heres an informative reply from Hohun in that same thread
Hi Hitech,
>Would also be interesting in your rate of fire table if you could put in a factor for frequency of hits (i.e. flatter traj = higher rate of hit ).
Here the shooting accuracies the Luftwaffe considered to be realistic against heavy bombers under combat conditions:
d (m) - Ph MG151/20 - Ph MK103 - Ph MK214
500 - 9.1% - 10.0% - 10.5%
1000 - 3.3% - 3.8% - 3.8%
1500 - 0.8% - 1.3% - 1.5%
The 50 mm MK214 as a large-caliber high-velocity weapon of course had a significantly flatter trajectory than the MG151/20, but that only paid off beyond effective range.
As pointed out above, flatter trajectory, i. e. higher muzzle velocity, also equalled higher dispersion, which would decrease the number of hits.
Time of flight of course is a beneficial factor, but it's value is greatest against moving targets - which means shorter effective firing ranges so the velocity advantage doesn't get to full effect.
Here's a time of flight comparison (from http://www.hitechcreations.com/foru...ghlight=hispano)
d (m) - MG151/20: t (s) - 20 mm AP (2800 fps): t (s)
100 - 0.13 - 0.12
200 - 0.29
300 - 0.47 - 0.42
400 - 0.69
500 - 0.94 - 0.73
In practice, this works out to these limiting target speeds for each type of gun for a 90° crossing shot, based on the assumption that the sight from each cockpit is 100 mil below the sight line (as in the P-51D).
d (m) - MG151/20: v (km/h) - 20 mm AP M75: v (km/h) - Hispano advantage (%)
100 - 277 - 277 - 0%
300 - 230 - 245 - 7%
500 - 191 - 228 - 19%
(From http://www.hitechcreations.com/foru...ghlight=hispano)
I'd say that any weighting of the results from Tony's tables according to assumptions about the hit probability would distort the results. The reason is that finally it's up to the pilot to choose his combat tactics according to the capabilities of his weapon.
Implying certain accuracies means implying certain tactics - which impedes the value of the weapon comparison as a tool for unbiased analysis.
(The most important tactical difference I'm thinking of is tracking shot versus snap shot.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
So I dont think anyone can say that theres no chance of getting hits at longer ranges (600+). But in AH if you have a 50 or hisso armed aircraft out to d1.2k its inevitable that the spray and pray will follow.
The problem folks associate with ah gunnery may not be ballistic problems but factor in highly visible hit sprites, limited DM, hours of practice, accurate range info, and ammo counters it all contributes to a less the "real" gunnery model.
Also the angle impact doesnt seem to be reflected in ah gunnery. Any hit adds to the hit points. In real life so round glanced off or just made a whole in the skin.
-
I'm pretty sure the biggest difference in gunnery (AH - IL) is the hit sprites.
AH flashes make it extremely easy to determine when you're hitting or not and adjusting your fire accordingly..
IL2 forces the pilots to go really close if they want visual confirmation of the hits. It's possible to hit at longer ranges - but you won't know if you did unless something actually explodes. That way you can spray all your ammo without knowing if any of them hit or not. Something that will never happen in AH.
The difference is like shooting eyes open or blindfolded. The latter was closer to reality as real life pilots (even the aces with thousands of combat hours) witness.
-
I know what effective range on point targets means.
Low velocity HE rounds should do less KE damage than higher velocity HE rounds .
As far as impact angle affecting damage, that's really a damage model issue .
And the hit sprites is a graphics issue .
Fixing the gunnery model and improving the gunnery model are two different things. The, "I hope the arcade/laser-like gunnery model gets fixed in AH2" whine is straight out of mandoland .
-
"Fixing the gunnery model and improving the gunnery model are two different things. The, 'I hope the arcade/laser-like gunnery model gets fixed in AH2' whine is straight out of mandoland."
Be it 'improved' or 'fixed', the 500+ yards critical shots are going to have to go away sometime, sooner or later.
Ain't nothing's gonna change that fact.
People can argue all they want... but as long as there's another game which came up with a gunnery model far more coherent with actual history, without 'nerfing' or 'neutering' anything, and using the same kind of data available for research...
Well, no more excuses for AH.
-
Higher velocity just means a "cleaner whole" unless some other component is hit like a wing spar. Most "armor" on ww2 aircraft was under 6 mm. Rate of fire causes more damage then just high velocity. At 250m the chemical energy of an HE and even more so of M'geschoss has a greater potential to cause serious damage. At this range velocity is less of an issue.
The question thats brought up is the effect of velocity alone on damage in relation to he and mine rounds. At 250m there may be variation in velocity between gun types but at that range it hardly matters. At these ranges higher velocity guns allow for better deflection shooting because the bullet will travel the distance between the 2 aircraft faster.
Gunnery "modelling" is not just ballistics. Its all those things I mentioned from hit sprites to hit points. Regardlees of how accurate or not the ballistics are the gunnery in AH isnt an accurrate representation of gunnery in the real world.
The percieved "unreal" advantage of 50 cal and hissos in ah is the range that they are able to get hits. Thats where the "laser gunnery" is brought up. At 250m its a simple matter of point and click. One thing I noticed from the .target command is that dispersion doesnt change between a short burst or long burst. So the the spray and prayer suffers nothing by holding his trigger down and hosing the sky. Range is only an issue, thus "laser gunnery", because of:
easily identifiable hit sprites
accurrate range counter
ammo counters
All these issues are linked.
-
Originally posted by Michele
...the starwars-like FM of spitfires or n1k,
I was wondering when this would show up in this thread.
Ack-Ack
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Be it 'improved' or 'fixed', the 500+ yards critical shots are going to have to go away sometime, sooner or later.
Ain't nothing's gonna change that fact.
People can argue all they want... but as long as there's another game which came up with a gunnery model far more coherent with actual history, without 'nerfing' or 'neutering' anything, and using the same kind of data available for research...
Well, no more excuses for AH.
Yes I know, all bullets should just dissappear of have little or no KE after 500yards, just like real life :rolleyes: Your opinion that critical shots beyond 500yards is unrealistic is wrong . The only way to make 500meter critical shots go away would be to ignore factual data and "nerf" gunnery .
Any game that makes 500+ shots ineffectual is in fact "nerfing" their gunnery. If you think anectdotal pilot testimony is more important than the laws of physics, then AH is not the game for you .
Batz, Using the .target command you can see that dispersion does change, the longer the burst, the more disperse the pattern is, this is most clearly demonstrated using the ns37mm of the yak9t.
Without considering barrel temp., after 3 rounds dispersion of a fixed mg isn't going to get anyworse. So if you are arguing that dispersion of a 150 round burst should be much larger than a 20 round burst that is not correct .
And at 250m the variation in velocity of 20mm HE shells does matter. It affects how far the cone of shrapnel penetrates .
-
Originally posted by Batz
The percieved "unreal" advantage of 50 cal and hissos in ah is the range that they are able to get hits. Thats where the "laser gunnery" is brought up.
Yep, that statement sums it up nicely. Like anything in this game, if it doesn't match some peoples preconcieved notions, it must be wrong, and a "lazer hizzooka, ufo niki fm" whine is initiated .
-
Also note how the location of the guns on an aircraft in AH in relation to the vector of thrust affects recoil.
In other words, recoil from cowl guns pushes the nose up, while recoil from wing mounted guns pushes the nose down .
-
"Your opinion that critical shots beyond 500yards is unrealistic is wrong . The only way to make 500meter critical shots go away would be to ignore factual data and 'nerf' gunnery . "
No that's not my opinion. It may be someone else's though.
The answer is right above in Batz's post:
"easily identifiable hit sprites
accurrate range counter
ammo counters "
Take these away - what have we got to lose?
(Maybe except pissing off people using planes which have advantages which it never should have had in the first place?)
...
"Any game that makes 500+ shots ineffectual is in fact "nerfing" their gunnery. If you think anectdotal pilot testimony is more important than the laws of physics, then AH is not the game for you."
Where do you draw the line between 'anecdotal pilot testimony' and 'historical fact'? Frankly, I don't think even you'll go as far as to dispute the fact that long range(anything over 400 meters) shots were almost totally ineffective.
Laws of physics is only a part of the whole picture. Despite the "physics", the 'real thing' never worked that way - people just couldn't, and/or wouldn't attempt to fire over certain distances due to various factors.
So the question is, why choose to use only the 'physics' part, and ignore the other factors? Would an attempt to introduce as much of those factors as possible be 'nerfing' it?
I don't think so.
...
So many factors are either missing, or warped(on the grounds that it was 'necessary for gameplay') in AH.
Up to a certain point, that was forgiveable, because still, AH was the best in every way. Other contendors were waning, and AH could boast that it provided the one and only 'realistic air combat experience using WW2 machinery'.
Now, after some years have passed since AH surfaced, other companies are coming up with air combat sim games which include the very subtle factors which AH chose to ignore on the grounds that "it's just a game". Turbulence, kinetic factors, bullet penetrations and bounced rounds, range of explosive effects for HE shells, 'quality' of hits, differences between the damage done by tracer rounds and normal rounds, accurate ammo counters, realistic hit sprites.. you name it. Oh, and they didn't aritficially 'nerf' anything, either.
As long as AH attempts to create a game based on a certain historical past, people asking for a better job on 'simulating' the airframes and battles, is IMO only logical. Us AH fans can't use the same excuses over and over again, lying to ourselves.
-
The choice of believing personal testimony over the physical laws of nature is a matter of free will, after all sanity is relative.
Facts are facts, that pilots of fighters with long range guns would wait untill they were very close to pull the trigger does not mean that medium range(500m) shots were ineffectual . It was pretty much standard doctrine in wwII and wwI to get as close as you can before shooting. Pilots and gunners who made it a practice to fire at targets 500yards or greater did so with good results. That's what machine guns are made to do . Case in point, the Korean War .
"You pull the trigger which produces a kilometer long stream of lead that you then manipulate with the control yoke to cross with your target, and that's that ."
Bounced rounds, penetrations etc is a damage model issue. Would be nice if the damage model was more elaborate and I'm confident that it will be.
Untill computer monitors can compare to binocular vision in a 3d enviornment we cannot do without range counters.
Hit sprites, and visual feedback of damage is a graphics issue, and I'm sure it will be improved upon also .
The trajectories and dispersion and range are modeled realisticly. Bottom line, if your plane occupies the same space as a stream of bullets it should take damage .
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Be it 'improved' or 'fixed', the 500+ yards critical shots are going to have to go away sometime, sooner or later.
Ain't nothing's gonna change that fact.
No, it's not a fact, it's an opinion .
-
Theres a whole host of data that I can reference that offer what the "effective range" is for the average pilot in ww2 was. In particular german data that accounts for hit %, firing range and amount hits per kill. Even flying lw planes in AH I (with my average gunnery) get "better" results.
That's what machine guns are made to do
As I said above and Quoted Tony Williams range was not a factor in determing what gun loadout should be on fighters. 50s werent chosen because of range nor was any other gun.
It was pretty much standard doctrine in wwII and wwI to get as close as you can before shooting.
They got in close because it was at those ranges where they could reasonably expect to land hits. The "doctrine" didnt dictate the range. Effective range determined the doctrine. Using jets as a comparison to ww2 prop fighter is misleading. Jets could "open" fire at longer ranges because of the speed of closure. Lw pilots would open fire at longer ranges when attacking bombers because of the size of target and closure. Plus at the eand of ww2 and into Korea Lead computing sites were developed.
I agree that pilot anecdotes alone are nothing you can model a sim on. But pilots could determine range on their Revi by adjusting the "ring" to match the wing span of a particular plane at a given range. Even with Hissos in the spifire the RaF wanted a convergence of 200m.
Pilots and gunners who made it a practice to fire at targets 500yards or greater did so with good results.
The only evidence of longer range gunnery are pilot anecdotes. So you cant really have both ways. Some speculate that ww2 pilots underestimated the range at which they opened fire (planes were actually further away). However they could of just as easily overestimated the range. But either way I would guess not more the 50-100meters. Any more then that seems improbrable.
Yep, that statement sums it up nicely. Like anything in this game, if it doesn't match some peoples preconcieved notions, it must be wrong, and a "lazer hizzooka, ufo niki fm" whine is initiated .
Exactly, some over state the "problem". While I have seen films in AH of kills in excess of 800m and they are rare. But whats less rare in imho is those kills in the 500m - 800m range (not bomber guns).
This is where the spray and pray is seen. Folks holding their trigger down and hosing the sky.
There is dispersion in AH, any one can test that. But it is constent even if one holds down the trigger. Recoil and "gun vibrations" are there but (with the exception of the hurri IId) the effect is minimal.
Theres room for improvement in AH gunnery. Gunnery is more then just ballistics. If we all agree (from the info HT has offerred on the board in the past I certainly agree) that ballistics are modelled correctly then theres only a few tweaks that imho would make ah "gunnery" better.
1. Better Hit sprites (thats a given). In particular the type of sprite of HMG and rifle calibre rounds. All HE and Mine rounds should give the visual effect of the blast.
2. No ammo counters in planes that didnt have them (this allows the spray and prayer be fully aware of the number of rounds hes used and how much he can spray)
3. An icon system that replaces exact ranges to something like wwporkonline. Where the icon fades in as you close. This would give us closure rate. As a part of that allow the revi "ring" to be adjusted and matched to our convergence. This may mean standard historical Revis for each plane but I use historic sites anyway.
So if I am in a 109 I can set my convergence to match the wing span of say a spit at 250m or a p51 at 250m then the diameter of the ring in the revi matches that.
4. Re-examine the effects of dispersion and recoil. Especially in regards to prolonged bursts.
It not not just a matter of real life physics being nerfed to match real life effects. So may want that but theres plenty around the edges that can be tweaked that could help improve "gunnery" overall.
But then again some folks like it as is.
fyi I am not sure who said laser "nik guns" but the type 99 mkIIs with thier lo rof are anything but laser. They drop well over range.
-
Untill the barrel begins to melt, dispersion should be constant. You say that the effect is minimal; compared to what ?
I'm sure a lot of those 400m+ kills were filmed . It was recommended that pilots kill nazi rockets from as far away as they could for obvious reason. Of course the most circulated film of rockets being shot down, because it's so dramatic, is the one where the pilot is actually closer than he should've been .
A big reason that pilots did not fire at long targets is because they had convergence set very close because they prefered to get so close to the target that they really did not need to do any aiming at all . Something the F86s and p38 pilots didn't have to worry about. In fact almost everytime I hear a p38 pilot being interviewed they allmost allways mention that .
-
"the starwars-like FM of spitfires or n1k"
Michele .... blah blah blah ... prove it ... come to the table with hard data and not conjecture.
-
You would be hard pressed to melt a barrel but thats not what I'm talking about. Guns and inparticilar wing mounted guns react with recoil. The longer you hold the trigger down the greater the vibration and the more dispersion. Not to mention the movement of the wing.
A barrel wont melt but the lands and groves my wear down and will effect the rounds ballistics.
A big reason that pilots did not fire at long targets is because they had convergence set very close because they prefered to get so close to the target that they really did not need to do any aiming at all
Chicken before the egg. It should read
A big reason convergence set very close was that pilots could not land hits at long ranges. They prefered to get close to the target so that they had a reasonable chance of landing hits.
Outside of the revi ww2 pilots had no idea of range. Range was determined by matching the wing span of a certain plane to the ring. Even at 250 yrds (750 ft) pilots had to aim. The better pilots got as close as they could.
If you want to go by pilot anecdotes then for every 1 that you referrence that claims kills at ranges beyond 600 yrds I can probrably fing 5 that say the opposite. They was an interview with an Aussie Spit pilot that commented directly on range.
From you first reply you said
Effective ranges of weapons in AH are shorter than they are in real life.
You knew what effective range means so or I right in thinking that you feel that in AH we need to be closer then real life to get kills?
I have read a p38 account of a guy claiming a kill at 800yrds. I dont believe any more then the accounts of pilots bouncing 50 cals off the ground to kill tanks or that a tanker could be welded into his tank by strafing.
-
Overall I think HTC has done a really great job the way it is. I think we should see the same jarring for shooting from a Bomber as from the pilots position in a fighter, and just like firing a Main Gun in a Gv rocks the aim.
These inconsistencies are little details that WOULD be easy to fix in and of themselves. But there are many of these and it points to an overloaded programming staff trying to work on bugs, maintain a business, work on enhancements and improvements to the game etc. etc. etc. In order to take care of all the issues involved would mean hiring a few more programmers and raise the cost of the game.
If your going going to pay 14.95 a month you are going to get what you pay for. Unless anyone here is going to voluntarily offer up more Dough for development be happy with what you get and STFU.
2Hawks
Btw, It would be nice if HTC threw us some info or at least said "Boo" so we would know the game isn't going to dissolve suddenly.
-
Like I said before dispersion is as bad as it's going to get after the third round leaves the barrel, it's not going to get any worse, vibrations and resonance have peaked .
Yes we cannot get kills at ranges as long as we could in real life, because in real life 30.06 rounds go a lot farther than 650meters and 50 cal goes a lot farther than 1100m and still packs a punch .
Fighter pilots set their gun convergance very close because they needed to get very close to the target because they couldn't shoot worth ****. They had about as much aerial gunnery practice as I do, which is 0 . This changed after the war, at least for american pilots .
There were german pilots that would regular get kills on high deflection shots with only a few rounds. This wasn't because they were talented or special, it was because of practice and training . Anybody with the proper training and healthy visual accuity can become a marksman . Had 109s been equiped with mg's and cannon that didn't have such crappy muzzle velocity they could've done this at longer ranges . Again most 109 pilots, like p38 pilots are quick to point out the advantage they had because they did not have to worry about convergence .
-
>A big reason convergence set very close was that pilots could
>not land hits at long ranges. They prefered to get close to the
>target so that they had a reasonable chance of landing hits.
Batz, I've read that during wwII pilots were taught to close the distance before shooting. This helped better ensure hitting the target. I've also read that conserving ammo was strongly suggested and considered a trait of good ariel gunnery. Especially within the US squadrons. Its difficult to conserve ammo when you are shooting targets at greater ranges and using tracers to lead. Yet still I've read about some pilots being great shooters and able to lead targets with great precision even with single bore 20mm cannons in 109s. I've seen film of corsairs using alot of tracers and lead to strike at targets at further ranges, color film BTW. So it shows that shootinng at further ranges was possible, its just that pilots were taught to close up the range before shooting. This makes sense because the combat time or experience of a real pilot in terms of hours doesnt match what a gamer experiences. Also in real life you experience the horror of possibly being killed, the natural panic that different men deal with in different ways. We gamers simply experience the fun part with some slight amounts of terror.
So what am I getting at here? I think that the gunnery should be made to be more realistic without removing the penalties of being able to shoot at longer ranges. Remove the range icon when the target is within D2.0. The gun FM math has to be good or better as well. On top of that some hodge podging needs to be implemented. Why so that it makes up for the difference between real life and a game. Example: I've noticed the gun modeling change throughout the years. I've simple adapted to it no matter how its changed. Im a gamer I'll never really die in AH. Give me some time and I'll adapt to the current gun FM. If it were real life though I might have died long before then. On the other hand, what if I have 50 sorties and havent been killed yet? Shouldnt I be allowed to adapt to some extent? If HTC makes the gun FM too hard, the older guys wont be able to hit anything. AH needs a unique gun FM thats not only mathmatically perfect but also has some hodge podging to better represent gunnery in real world conditions. Im all for that so long as its consistant and fair for everyone.
Rather than suggesting a solution, Im suggesting some factors/ideas instead for the gun FM.
-
Originally posted by 2Hawks
Overall I think HTC has done a really great job the way it is. I think we should see the same jarring for shooting from a Bomber as from the pilots position in a fighter, and just like firing a Main Gun in a Gv rocks the aim.
Yep, one of my beefs is that dispersion of pintle mounted mg's is the same as fixed mg's, It should be much broader. That, and the fact that to kill the airgaurd mg on tanks you have to disable the whole turret .
-
Originally posted by Batz
I have read a p38 account of a guy claiming a kill at 800yrds. I dont believe any more then the accounts of pilots bouncing 50 cals off the ground to kill tanks or that a tanker could be welded into his tank by strafing.
You don't believe he got a kill with 50cals and 20mm at 800yrds ? May I ask why ?
You know that at 800yards the browning 50cal is very stable and still packing about as much energy as ever.
And you know that the dispersion of the m2 with the light barrel group is still plenty dense at 800yards.
So I don't understand why you think this is unbelievable .
-
Because to get a kill at 800yrds the plane he shooting at would have to be level and not manuvering for him to "aim".
Take 109 with a wingspan of 10.6 m (35ft) at 800 thats a small target. If he aimed, that is if it wasnt anything more then a lucky spray n pray shot, how does he know it was 800yrds and not 600? The only range information he has is from his revi. 800yrds = 2400ft / .45 miles. If the plane he hit was level then why not hold fire and close the gap? Surely you arent suggesting he got an 800yrd kill deflection shot.
It isnt substantiated any other way then by his story. I can post a 109e pilot claiming he can out turn a spit mkI. He believes but it aint truth. Just like bouncing 50s off the ground.
There were german pilots that would regular get kills on high deflection shots with only a few rounds. This wasn't because they were talented or special, it was because of practice and training . Anybody with the proper training and healthy visual accuity can become a marksman . Had 109s been equiped with mg's and cannon that didn't have such crappy muzzle velocity they could've done this at longer ranges . Again most 109 pilots, like p38 pilots are quick to point out the advantage they had because they did not have to worry about convergence.
Define high deflection shots. Marseille was probrably the best shooter in the lw and he hit deflection shots but even then he was in close. He practiced attacks on his staffel over and to perfect his shooting. The raf would go into a luftberry when attacked. Marseille would attack from above like most lw pilots but where he excelled was flying his 109s to the limit. With full flaps and would cut his throttle to get his shot. But all were in close.
The mgff151/15 was high velocity. Even the US looked to switching to that type of gun. If all the lw needed to increase thier range then they would have kept 13mm and 15mm nose cannon. But as I quoted above range was not a consideration in choosing gun type.
Find one quote anywhere that says the US choice to keep 50cals was based on range.
Comparing a gun fired from an aircraft in combat to guns fired on the ground is irrelevant.
I'll quote Tony again
Let me put it this way: when Spitfires were first armed with two 20mm cannon, the RAF was annoyed because gun bay restrictions prevented them from converging the guns any closer than 300 yards - they wanted 200!
I'm afraid that long-range shooting seems to be one area in which sims remain unrealistic.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
Go in close, and when you think you are too close, go in closer.
-- Major Thomas B. 'Tommy' McGuire, USAAF.
I opened fire when the whole windshield was black with the enemy . . . at minimum range . . . it doesn't matter what your angle is to him or whether you are in a turn or any other maneuver.
-- Colonel Erich 'Bubi' Hartmann,
If you are saying based on a few pilot anecdotes that the effective kill range for fighters with high velocity rounds (50cal) is 800yrds or so well thats fundementally wrong. In rebuttal I can post far more in support of my point.
-
I remember reading somewhere that the major reason the americans decided to stick the the .50 cals was for the simple reason they had lots of them stockpiled.
-
Originally posted by Batz
Because to get a kill at 800yrds the plane he shooting at would have to be level and not manuvering for him to "aim".
Take 109 with a wingspan of 10.6 m (35ft) at 800 thats a small target. If he aimed, that is if it wasnt anything more then a lucky spray n pray shot, how does he know it was 800yrds and not 600? The only range information he has is from his revi. 800yrds = 2400ft / .45 miles. If the plane he hit was level then why not hold fire and close the gap? Surely you arent suggesting he got an 800yrd kill deflection shot.
You know I am not, although a defection shot at 800m is just as possible as a non deflection shot. Probability does not = Posibilty, and don't call me Surely .
The mgff151/15 was high velocity. Even the US looked to switching to that type of gun. If all the lw needed to increase thier range then they would have kept 13mm and 15mm nose cannon. But as I quoted above range was not a consideration in choosing gun type.
[/b]
Yep, the 15mm was a good weapon, also big and heavy. Fortunately the 13mm was not very good.
Find one quote anywhere that says the US choice to keep 50cals was based on range.
[/b]
No.
Three reasons:
1. I don't feel like doing what you tell me to do.
2. By your statement you are implying that I stated that the 50cal was fielded solely for it's muzzle velocity. I did not .
3. It would be pretty stupid of them if range was not a consideration, if it only threw lead 3yards it wouldn't have been on aircraft then and it wouldn't be on aircraft now. Range was a basis for keeping 50cals.
Comparing a gun fired from an aircraft in combat to guns fired on the ground is irrelevant.[/b]
It is not irrelevant, all the data we have about aircraft guns was collected on the ground .
If you are saying based on a few pilot anecdotes that the effective kill range for fighters with high velocity rounds (50cal) is 800yrds or so well thats fundementally wrong. [/b]
No I am basing it on facts and data, at 800yrds the 50cal bullet is moving at 2,000-2,400fps with a dispersion diameter of roughly 10meters(wingspan of a 109).
In rebuttal I can post far more in support of my point. [/B]
I think I know what your point is, but you haven't posted anything to support it yet.
Basically you think that pilots couldn't hit, or at least nearly impossible to hit other planes at ranges >500m or so.
And others including my self think that for the most part pilots wouldn't shoot at planes at ranges >500m.
Is there something that happens to projecties when they get 500m from the muzzle that affects their trajectory so drastically that it renders the weapon ineffectual ?
No, of course there is not.
But for your contention to be true, that shots at ranges <300m regularly scored, and shots beyond 400m will almost never score in real life, there would have to be .
-
Hey guys......did you never try some other Air combat simulator except AH ???? No ???? Then try it once before to say this is a good FM and a good gunnery model, I suggest one overall Warbirds, then you will know what's the difference.
Obviously I prefer AH at last, but this don't means I can't criticate some its TOY aspects hoping it will be more realistic like some years ago it was (or better).
I have played some months ago at the same time in Ah and Warbirds and I could say I came in AH to relax myself, this don't means I'm presuming to be one of the best, this only was how I felt.
Have fun.
-
I think everybody here has played/plays wb .
-
So what am I getting at here? I think that the gunnery should be made to be more realistic without removing the penalties of being able to shoot at longer ranges.
senna, I agree.
That's what I'm basically suggesting here.
Nobody is asking things to be nerfed or neutered.
What I'm saying is that in AH, physical and numerate factors that suggest a certain possibility is modelled, and yet, other factors which also regulated them, are not.
....
Suave, gunnery is a whole lot more than just 'laws of physics'... and certain factors from the DM are also interlinked with the GM.
Bounced rounds, penetrations etc is a damage model issue.
...
Hit sprites, and visual feedback of damage is a graphics issue, and I'm sure it will be improved upon also .
It must be noted that the very characteristic of how AH does damage in the game, and the way how people can confirm it, has also a lot to do with the 'firing at long range' mentality.
It is not itself a gunnery issue, true, but it does effect people's judgement and tendencies.
All along you continue to assume that we're better shots and more experienced in gunnery than the WW2 pilots - well, the truth may very well be that we show better hit rates due to factors which only exist in AH, and not in reality - hit sprites and range counters immediately come into the mind. Those are factors outside of 'laws of physics' which effects people's gunnery.
You can't just dissect this factor from that factor, and deal with "the ONLY relevant factor", because there's no such thing. "Factors of possibility" is continuously regulated by "factors of probability" - and there's a lot more factors of probability than just experience.
-
As far as .50 cal vs 20 mm in US aircraft, remember that the USAAF and USN had access to a 20 mm gun with better ballistics than the German stuff, namely the Hispano. Both services considered (and used) both weapons, and if you are interested to know what the decision makers were thinking at the time, there's no reason to speculate. Just get a copy of "The Report Of The Joint Fighter Conference" or do a search of the Aircraft & Vehicles Forum to find a lengthy discussion with excerpts from the book, in which Pyro neatly summarized the whole debate and his feelings on how it plays out in AH.
-
Ok Kweassa, as long as you concede that the people whining that AH gunnery is "ridiculous" because it doesn't feel right and comparing it to gunnery in a game where gunnery is in fact nerfed and nuetered are straight out of mandoland .
The biggets adversity to aiming would be buffeting from turbulance and propwash . This would be very difficult and complex to model the right way. The game designers could just arbitrarily throw in some buffeting affects when you are following in another planes flight path. But we've been here long enough to know that HTC doesn't do things like that. Call it integrity or call it obsessive compulsion, but they build things from the ground up .
-
Originally posted by Batz
You would be hard pressed to melt a barrel but thats not what I'm talking about. Guns and inparticilar wing mounted guns react with recoil. The longer you hold the trigger down the greater the vibration and the more dispersion. Not to mention the movement of the wing.
A barrel wont melt but the lands and groves my wear down and will effect the rounds ballistics.
Hmm I melted a M60 barrel while I was in the Army and I had to pay for it too. after 2 linked belts running through the "60" the parrel actually sagged.
__________________
Bun-Bun Rules, Ka-Click
Gunns
-
...comparing it to gunnery in a game where gunnery is in fact nerfed and nuetered are straight out of mandoland
Incidentally, just which comparative game are we talking about?
...
Suave, m8, every game is arbitrary in its own way. Whatever factors technology allows us to throw in, it is always 'only a game', a simulated event of the real thing.
'Laws of physics' and what they suggest, is a way to regulate a partial portion of the whole arbitrary situation for the attempt to make it at least coincide with some part of 'reality' as we know.
In short, 'physics' don't make anything real or trustworthy. If the people who have gripes about gunnery only 'feel' that it is wrong, much the same, the people who advocate current gunnery only 'feel' nothing's wrong with it!
Simulation, literally, is something recreated to make people 'feel' a certain machine/event/history(etc etc..) at second-hand :) That 'feel' is a powerful thing.
Thus the problem always inevidently comes to which 'feel' 'feels more right', and thus 'evidence' is drawn up to discuss.
Physics alone will not explain history(or, 'anecdotal evidence' if you will... ;) ). It would certainly represent a certain factor that contributed to the history, yes, but the "AH uses correct physics as known, therefore, it is correct, and doesn't need to be fixed" argument just won't cut it.
Therefore, some deveopers would choose to put in artificial regulators which would force the game to give it a feel they think it is right - 'neutering', such as making bullets disappear over 500meters and etc etc.
Others, would choose to put in more factors previously unnoticed, ignored or deemed unnecessary, and see if the factors can interact better along with the 'physics' part, to recreate something that 'feels' even better. And in my opinion, they succeeded in doing that with IL-2 and Forgotten Battles.
....
Take out the ammo counters, change the hit sprites realistically, change the DM into something more subtle etc etc.. - as you mentioned, these are not itself gunnery, true. But each of those factors affect it in its own way.
Let's just pretend AH has gone through all those changes - hey, that's just the very chance to prove the "we're better shots than real pilots" theory, no?
Since the 'physics' will remain unchanged, "no ammo counters" and "different hit sprites according to shell type/hit distances" won't stop the 'experienced' from still taking long range shots, right? The physics would suggest the possibility is always there, even if other factors would act to lower the probability - if AH gamers are that skilled, those puny changes won't effect the player's terrific marksmanship!
....
Or.. maybe not?
...
Nobody's asking the bullets disappear over 500yards or something. I'm asking other factors be introduced in conjuction with the physics we already have. Turbulence is hard to model? Fine. Forget turbulence. But taking out ammo counters or changing hit sprites is feasible, is it not?
THAT, would be 'improvement'.
If those changes still don't bother 500 meter shots(as suggested by your faith in physics), then I humbly rest my case.
ps) while your exempt for the 'mandoland', which derives from nasty attitudes and rude remarks of people arguing what they want, is quite understandable... not all of the people who are not satisfied with what AH currently is, come from that territory.
-
800-100 yards shots?
1. get your favorite assult rifle (in america I think you can buy one of those in the grocery, showing a note from your mama... :) ). No scope.
2.Go out to an open field or a shooting range. Put a car size target at 800m (about the same crosssection as a plane from dead 6).
3. try to hit it. try it laying down, with support with whatever you like. Shoot one bullet at a time for accuracy.
Did you hit anything?
If you did, sign-up for the olympic team.
over 400-500m all assult rifles are pretty worthless as an aimed weapon, not because it can't reach there, but because you can't aim it there.
try to do the same from a vibrating plane. Just holding your head in the line of the gunsight is a challange even under light G. Add to that that the platform (not the gunmount) is shaking like a gogo dancer.
in AH if the target is perfectly level, I can hit it from 800 yards pretty easily.
-
Someone said hit sprite are too big in AH ?
http://mezek.valka.cz/texty/filmy/data/utok4.mpeg
http://mezek.valka.cz/texty/filmy/data/utok3.mpeg
From http://mezek.valka.cz/texty/filmy.htm
@Bozon :
it depend also of the plane you fly for exemple :
in a P47 I'm not afraid to open fire on a steady target at 1 to 1.2 K
in a Yak I won't waste my ammo at such target.
-
WTG BOZON!!!
NO MORE PROOF NEEDED!!
Anyway, no range icon below 1k should be an important change!
Ciao
Michele
-
Originally posted by fffreeze220
Yes but at least u cant tell in IL-2 if u hit for sure or not. If u shooting regulary non Exploding bullets u only see little parts falling of and u cant tell how bad ur hits are.
In AH every bullet that hit u can tell exactly. That should be chnaged. Also in AH only essential parts falling of the plane. I would like to see little fragments come off when u score a hit.
That is one of the biggest reasons poeple fire long range. They can tell if they are hitting you or not. I think even with .50 API, it would be very difficult to see if individual bullets were hitting. Many of them would simply penatrate the A/C skin and not much else would show except a hole (and you wouldn't see the hole from 300 yards)
Long range shooting in AH is just another gamey feature made possible through exact range, unmistakable hit sprites and 0 atmospheric effects.
This is especially true at higher altitudes. Above 10K, you could see constant crosswinds of exceeding 10MPH, above 15, even more. Those winds would have a mjor impact on ballistics at ranges more than a few hundred yards.
-
This is especially true at higher altitudes. Above 10K, you could see constant crosswinds of exceeding 10MPH, above 15, even more. Those winds would have a mjor impact on ballistics at ranges more than a few hundred yards.
? ?
the planes are moving with the chunk of air, it is stationary to them unless there's a speed gradient to the wind.
do you mean windspeed fluctuations? please explain.
Bozon
-
wind does affect shots... I can't say for sure if it affects aircraft guns in AH, but it sure affects Tank rounds.
But think for a moment... how fast does the round travel 500 yrds... how much effect do you expect a 10mph wind to have? I'd think the bullet's path would only change very minimally, maybe a couple feet from straight and true at the most..
SKurj
-
They do effect aircraft guns, but only below a certain speed.
-
straffo, those are explosive rounds.
-
Might I point out:
That the U.S. Measurement system is in FEET. FEET Not Meters or Yards. When your talking 800 Yards/Meters your saying place the target 2400 FEET away. Now while it IS possible to hit that target if you account for the drop of the bullet, (I forget the technical term for it) but not for someone who hasn't lived wiht Guns their entire life and much less expect anyone who hasn't touched a gun to be able to hit something like that. Poor comparison in that respect but *Does* go back to the argument of practice. The more you shoot, the better you get. Only N00bs cry about getting nailed when they are trying to flee. :)
Further, I keep seeing ppl relate Aces High to IL2. If IL2 is such a superiour game then why are you Master-Debating the lack of similar features in AH? Could it be the _gameplay_ which is HTC's actual product? I would think so, otherwise I would go back to MSCFS, or some other such cold lonesome, single to 8 person AI-Driven realms that is nothing like a virtual world.
Let me know when you get on some night, I would love to meet you in the DA. :)
2Hawks
-
Originally posted by Michele
WTG BOZON!!!
NO MORE PROOF NEEDED!!
Anyway, no range icon below 1k should be an important change!
Ciao
Michele
Bozon gave us an anecdotal question.
THERE WAS NO PROOF SHOWN!! Keep reaching, though.
Bozon,
why not at least make it an apple to pear comparison. Use a plane sized target and a tripod mounted 50 cal. I found it easy enough to hit a raft sized target bobbing up and down on the ocean from 500+ yds away within the first 10 rounds.
... On the chart I have of the Fw190a8 armement installation the Mg151/20 are shown to be harmonized with the sighting line at 550m (601yds) with crossover at 600m/800m/900m (656yds/874yds/984yds). Seems someone thought it was possible to hit something over 300m away.
Anyone claiming to consistently get kills in AH at 900+ is full of crap. It does happen, but its pretty rare. Hell, I don't even remember the last time I was killed from that far out. If you let someone 800+ away from you shoot you down, you deserved it.
F.
-
Bozon you're trying to compare assault rifles with 30cal and larger machine guns .
I've hit 800m targets with machine guns in real life. In fact anybody who qualified with the m60 in the us army has, it's not a big deal.
As for the m2 50cal, the one on the m3 halftrack, it's max effective range on point targets is 2,000 yard . It's maximum range is something like 7,500 yards . The Japanese, and soviet 12.7mm mgs perform just as well if not better .
-
There is crosswind in the ma, and it does affect projectiles . You can play with the wind settings offline and see for yourself .
-
http://digilander.libero.it/TerzoStormo/AH%20FILMATI/GUN%20MACCHI.avi
-
Originally posted by Furious
... On the chart I have of the Fw190a8 armement installation the Mg151/20 are shown to be harmonized with the sighting line at 550m (601yds) with crossover at 600m/800m/900m (656yds/874yds/984yds). Seems someone thought it was possible to hit something over 300m away.
Yes, B17 sized.
-
Yes and bullets simply wont collied with anything smaller than a b17 at those ranges. It's a mysterious phenomenon that has baffled everyone . :rolleyes:
-
Awsome video Tempest, that was posted here a long time ago. 202 killing a p40, you can even see the breda 12.7mm HE bursting in the air around the plane .
-
And what are the ranges of those planes being hit in the 3~4 films posted here? Either WW2 era film makers had some very clean digital zoom&blow-up resizing technology, or the ranges are pretty damn close. Close enough to confirm hits visually.
Anyone have a 700yard+ MG or cannon hit guncam for comparison? :D (Does such a film exist at all?)
(...or, is this also one of those 'deceptions' where all guncam films are nothing but collections of most spectacular close shots, and the true majority of shots taken is a lot further?)
...
Further, I keep seeing ppl relate Aces High to IL2. If IL2 is such a superiour game then why are you Master-Debating the lack of similar features in AH? Could it be the _gameplay_ which is HTC's actual product? I would think so, otherwise I would go back to MSCFS, or some other such cold lonesome, single to 8 person AI-Driven realms that is nothing like a virtual world.
It really is baffling when at some point of the argument people are all enthusiastic about how realistic and carefully AH is modelled, and then, suddenly they jump to 'it's a game. Gameplay is more important' defense ;). If "gameplay" is all so important, then the "bullets disappear over 500m" feature would also be a feasible 'gameplay' option for future AH development, would it be not?
And last time I read this thread, nobody was saying "IL-2 is a better MMOG game than AH". To make it short, you're saying "If IL-2 is so good, then go play that". Not very relevant in this matter where everybody's discussig how a certain aspect might be protrayed, no? :D
...
It's a mysterious phenomenon that has baffled everyone .
Suave, if such a "mysterious phenomenon" doesn't exist, what prevented every fighter pilots from becoming crackshot aces in real life?
Then why did they suck in the first place when the weapon's so good? Turbulence and crosswinds, as said by other people in this posts, won't be any 'magical' major factor, right? - "Dispersion with only a 10 meter radius".... "10mph crosswind won't matter much..." etc etc.
What's the emphasis on 'gunnery' anyway when the weapons characteristic itself was so superb that hitting an object further than 5~6 football field lengths was so possible, probable and easy?
You're keep treating the factors outside of plain physics as something that never exists at all.
Gunnery experience, turbulent atmospheric conditions, the pilots' psychological state, his awareness in numbers of rounds left, official doctrine he was trained by, methods of confirming hits on various ranges, methods of calculating range itself.. etc etc.
Not all of them may be put into a single game.
But some of them may be.
It's not a 'magical phenomenon' - it's a factor that constitues the results of gunnery modelling just as much as physics. The difference is that they cannot be simply quantified in numeric style.
The choice would be either ignore them and treat them as they don't exist at all, or try to find a way. The former is what you're implying. The latter is what I am emphasizing.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Be it 'improved' or 'fixed', the 500+ yards critical shots are going to have to go away sometime, sooner or later.
Ain't nothing's gonna change that fact.
Lest you forget, this is what you are arguing .
500+ critical shots are not only possible but realistic, do the math .
You want 500+ yard critical shots to "go away" so that the game feels more like your preconception of what it should be like. What is modeled in the game isn't wrong, your preconceptions are . It's almost as if you want them to abitrarily handicap gunnery like IL2 .
The argument here isn't that there needs to be more conditons that affect aiming adversely becasue nobody is contesting that.
-
What exactly does it mean when you say this?
500+ critical shots are not only possible but realistic, do the math .
You're using the term 'realistic' in such a narrow manner that I'm getting confused now. I think I am very sure that you wouldn't define the 'reality' around you in just numbers, no?
Then, when you hear someone like me saying "500 yard shots are unrealistic", are you translating that as "impossible" and "wouldn't happen in real life"?
In that case, your arguments start to make sense. Otherwise, it's full of self contradictions.
ps) Again, what "arbitrarily handicapped gunnery"? You keep claiming there's some artificial handicaps in IL-2 or FB, and yet, I don't see you naming it. So just what exactly are you talking about?
-
I wasn't giving any proof, I just made my impression that 800-1000 yards shots are extreemly low probability.
2hawks:
That the U.S. Measurement system is in FEET. FEET Not Meters or Yards. When your talking 800 Yards/Meters your saying place the target 2400 FEET away.
I read somewhere that the range indicator in AH is yards.
furious:
Anyone claiming to consistently get kills in AH at 900+ is full of crap. It does happen, but its pretty rare. Hell, I don't even remember the last time I was killed from that far out. If you let someone 800+ away from you shoot you down, you deserved it.
I dont claim to be able to "consistently" hit from 900 yards. I am a terrible marksman and usually dont bother firing over 350~400 yards and I fly the jug.
Apparantly quite a few people can though and I get hit ALOT from 800-1000 yards even with cannons (0.5 will be too spread to cause real damage)
Sauve:
As for the m2 50cal, the one on the m3 halftrack, it's max effective range on point targets is 2,000 yard . It's maximum range is something like 7,500 yards .
Being able to point a lazer at 2x2m target from 2000m requires directional accuracy of ~0.05 degrees. Possible with a lazer, damn hard with an auto-firing gun and add to that bullet drop (even if the bullet keeps it's ~1000m/s velocity it's about 2 sec of flight! translating to x=5t^2 x=20m drop. you really have to shoot in an arc. I dont buy that.
I'll say again that in a plane, the mere problem of keeping your eye stable in the gunsight would prevent such accuracy. comming back to 800 yards, it seems to me that would still be very hard to hit from a plane without modern computed gunsights and very high velocity guns.
just my OPINION.
Bozon
-
A question:
Would there be more or less turblulence from a plane in front of you as you move in closer on their 6?
I don't know the answer to this, but logic tells me that it would.
How does this play into the arguements that turbulence would be a negative a factor at longer ranges?
-
range is in yards, no way can that target 300 away from me be 10 ft away (which is about as wide as my living room).
Btw, can planes use the trbulence from the plane in front like racers do? (Believe the technical term is slipstream)
-
Originally posted by BenDover
range is in yards, no way can that target 300 away from me be 10 ft away (which is about as wide as my living room).
Btw, can planes use the trbulence from the plane in front like racer cars do? (Believe the technical term is slipstream)
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
And what are the ranges of those planes being hit in the 3~4 films posted here? Either WW2 era film makers had some very clean digital zoom&blow-up resizing technology, or the ranges are pretty damn close. Close enough to confirm hits visually.
I posted the films not for the distance but for the hit sprite :)
-
First off, BenDover:
range is in yards, no way can that target 300 away from me be 10 ft away (which is about as wide as my living room).
I don't know what kind of math you're doing, but I'm hoping it involved some shots of tequila first. I think what you're getting at is that if the range counter was in feet and said 300, it would mean the target was only 100 yards in front of you (the length of a football field, not your living room). But as far as I know, the range counter is in yards.
Second, Furious asked about the effects of prop wash.
A question:
Would there be more or less turblulence from a plane in front of you as you move in closer on their 6?
I don't know the answer to this, but logic tells me that it would.
How does this play into the arguements that turbulence would be a negative a factor at longer ranges?
If you've ever flown a glider in aerotow, you'd know that propwash tends to sink rather quickly from the plane generating it. About the only time you'd feel it would be if you were coming in on someone's very low six. If you are directly behind another plane, you don't feel any effects from prop wash.
-
This is a incredible discussion about hit probablility at range, velocity, and ballistics. It is truely wonderful stuff, but the one thing I think needs to be brought to the table.....
Hit sprites are Cool! :)
-
Next week's thursday snapshot (Thu May 29th) will be flown without enemy icons. Welcome!
Camo
-
Originally posted by straffo
Someone said hit sprite are too big in AH ?
http://mezek.valka.cz/texty/filmy/data/utok4.mpeg
http://mezek.valka.cz/texty/filmy/data/utok3.mpeg
From http://mezek.valka.cz/texty/filmy.htm
Great films, thanks!
Please compare these two clips. Notice especially the relative size of the target and the shooting results.
http://mezek.valka.cz/texty/filmy/data/utok1.mpeg (1.2MB)
http://mezek.valka.cz/texty/filmy/data/utok2.mpeg (0.9MB)
In the first film, the shooting is "spray and pray", the target is only hit with two HE rounds, one in each wing. The size of the target is about three finger widths on my screen.
In the second film, the results are much better, with a good long burst landed in the cockpit area. The target is significantly closer, showing as six fingers wide on my screen. The results of the gunnery are stunningly better in this film.
Of course, pilot skills and all that make a huge difference, but just compare the dispersion. In the first film the rounds are all over the screen, in the second one the target is so close that a well aimed burst hits with deadly results. The closer the better.
The reality in AH is very different that what these films show.
Camo
-
whoops, i was in a rush and still half asleep, k?
Btw, what codec does that film tempest posted use?
-
scary films...
what plane was the attacker?
Bozon
-
Originally posted by LLv34_Camouflage
Great films, thanks!
Please compare these two clips. Notice especially the relative size of the target and the shooting results.
http://mezek.valka.cz/texty/filmy/data/utok1.mpeg (1.2MB)
http://mezek.valka.cz/texty/filmy/data/utok2.mpeg (0.9MB)
In the first film, the shooting is "spray and pray", the target is only hit with two HE rounds, one in each wing. The size of the target is about three finger widths on my screen.
In the second film, the results are much better, with a good long burst landed in the cockpit area. The target is significantly closer, showing as six fingers wide on my screen. The results of the gunnery are stunningly better in this film.
Of course, pilot skills and all that make a huge difference, but just compare the dispersion. In the first film the rounds are all over the screen, in the second one the target is so close that a well aimed burst hits with deadly results. The closer the better.
The reality in AH is very different that what these films show.
Camo
Great Films. Would you care to venture to guess a hit percentage for both films?
For the first one I count about 30 tracers with about 4 hits for a percentage of around 7.5%. Of course this doesn't take into account the rounds inbetween tracers nor none HE hits. Still 7.5% is not very far of from MA average hit percentage.
Which brings me to another series of questions.
1. How many A2A kills occured during WW2?
2. How many A2A gun cam kills have you seen?
3. Is it possible that the gun cam footage you have seen, since it is entertainment, was selected for the level of visible violence?
4. If #3 is yes, would close in kills be preferable to long distance kills in regards to level of visible violence?
My point being that there were 10's of thousands more A2A kills during WW2 than any of us have seen footage of. Don't base reality on a small and biased sample.
F.
-
Originally posted by bozon
scary films...
what plane was the attacker?
Bozon
Both were 109Es, first target was a spitfire (don't 109s and spits look alike from behind?), 2nd was a hurri.
I think i've got the order right, can't read czech.
-
I would have like to hear the pyro opinion .....:confused:
-
Originally posted by Rapace
I would have like to hear the pyro opinion .....:confused:
Pyro has given his opinion, as has Hitech.
AH is four years old, you think this never came up before?
All you needed to do is a quick search, but since you were to lazy, I did it for you.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23837&perpage=40&highlight=gunnery&pagenumber=1
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1214&highlight=gunnery
F.
-
I from him wanted to know whether up AHII are foreseen changes for the gunnery...:rolleyes:
To every thanks way for the Link ... ;)
-
hehe, "easyer"
-
Originally posted by Rapace
I from him wanted to know whether up AHII are foreseen changes for the gunnery...:rolleyes:
To every thanks way for the Link ... ;)
Changes in what respect?
Your original post:
Will the AHII Gunnery be as ridiculous as the current one?
According to me the thing this game ruins is Gunnery they do of the draws from unbelievable distances ...
I hope that the thing is revisited ...
HT and Pyro have responded to this very same question in the 2 links I posted. Have the laws of physics changed since they replied?
You are leading me to believe that your skills of comprehension are seriously lacking. Any, there was a lot of interesting information in this thread and those two links.
F.
-
yes, the ammount of CO2 in the air is increasing the ammount of air resistance;)
-
I gave up on earthly physics and complicated mathmatics and turned to yoda....
I now aim using 'The Force(tm)' :D
-
HT and Pyro have responded to this very same question in the 2 links I posted. Have the laws of physics changed since they replied?
The physics is not the problem. As I mentioned before, our ability to AIM at 1000 yards is exagerated.
Now, we can pull 5G and keep our eye perfectly in the line-of-sight of the gunsight. The plane does not shake, it's a perfectly stable platform, like a gun on a tripod, while it should be like a gun on a tripod mounted on a driving truck.
The guns' physics are probably modeled fine. The aiming ability isn't.
Bozon
-
...plus, the factors that inhibit out ability, or eagerness to aim ;)
-
Hey Furious you are talking about a person who have about 5 or more years experience in differents combat flight sims (one overall WB) so keep this in mind when you say
skills of comprehension are seriously lacking.
I don't think you could be very happy reading anyone writing that of you. Chill out then.
I think AH could follow the suggestions the best pilots of AH could give regarding these aspects of the ARCAD.......ehm GAME :p ;) :) :D :cool:
-
Hey Clouds, I don't care. Having 5 or more years experience in video games means nothing to me.
If you are presented with the answers to your questions and then continue to ask the same questions, you may very well have a comprehension problem. Either that or you are intentionally being obnoxious.
Anyway, read my signature and you will see how much I am bothered by what people write about me.
-
which thread was that one from?
-
I have been thinking about the air-to-air gunnery issue and have come to the opinion that in order for AH to move to the next level sim wise the effects of turbulance and gun recoil on the mounting point need to be simulated or faked.
The change is just as important as the correction in energy bleed that was done in AH v1.04.
Air-to-air gunnery needs more of the real world complexity modeled.
-
Some things I havent yet seen in any combat flight sim are:
1) contrails
2) a functioning rear view mirror in Hurricanes and spits
3) a windshield opacization due to the oil leackage from a damaged engine
4) an airplane hiding between me and the sun
5) the flames coming from the exaut pipes during the night flight
6) wingtips red and green light
7) landing gear beams for the night land
8) more postations allowed in bombers not only a pilot and a gunner so the permission to carry more than 2 persons aboard.
9) mechanicals faults and guns bloching.
10) aircrafts lined up besides a runway waiting for pilots while a strike force is coming on the field.
11) a not unlimited number of fighters and bombers allowed on each field like if any field could be a McAir shop (like today it is)
12) the fighters and some bombers can roll on the grass as well as on a runway so what does the runways represents ?
13) a SAR force (on the ground as well as on the sea) to save chuted pilots bringing them to the nearest field
I think these things could bring some realism more in any simulator, don't you ? ;)
-
I've never seen 9 and 13 in any sim, but some of those items have been modeled in sims since the 1980s .
-
I've seen: 1,3,4,8,9 in b17 2
-
Air Warrior had:
2) a functioning rear view mirror in Hurricanes and spits
8) more postations allowed in bombers not only a pilot and a gunner so the permission to carry more than 2 persons aboard.
9) mechanicals faults (but it was hated and not very good)
11) a not unlimited number of fighters and bombers allowed on each field like if any field could be a McAir shop (like today it is)
4) an airplane hiding between me and the sun (I think AW had this, can't remember; but in any case it's already a feature of AH)
-
HTC will have to model a thumb and provide a key for activating it. The thumb button in these cases.
-
I think that would be confusing.
Supern00b: Cheating bastard, how did you see me in the sun
Me: The thumb button
Supern00b: My thumb button fires my second weapon
Me: Other thumb button
Supern00b: Spacebar? Thats my brake
Me: .squelch Supern00b
-
I'm sorry m8s.
What I was intended is an online combat flight simulator and not a simple combat flight simulator.
So apply that points to an online flight sim.
Maybe only IL2 have some of those specs implemented but it is still a limited online flight sim and maybe some others have WW2online.
However the best of all WW2online have is the range icon representation that make the icons showing up and take consistence if you are looking for more seconds in a fixed direction (without distance numbers changing obviously).
-
http://rafiger.de/Homepage/Literatur/Schiessfibel.pdf
-
Just some notes on gunnery what is and isn't modeled.
1. Wind is modeled. Wind in fighter gunnery realy has no effect , the resone for this is that both target and shooter are also moving with the wind, so in a steady state wind ( which in the real world is the case most of the time unless you are at low alt.) shooter,bullet,target are all effected the same amount with the wind. and every thing looks the same in relation to eachother.
2. Altitude effects the gun ranges do to low densities.
3. Gun recoil is modeled, along with some random dispersion to account for turbulance and gun consitancy. Test it with .target .
A large Missconception is that dispersion makes gunnery harder at long ranges, it acctualy helps you in getting a lucky hit.
4. All icon ranges are in yards.
5. Big misconception is there are a lot of players who can get kills a lot at longer ranges. Funny thing about this, it's always some one else, ask yourself at what range can you get kills at regularly. Most people are like you.
6. Ask a newbie, say with 1 month of playing, he already has more combat experiance than almost all WWII vets how well he can shoot.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by hitech
Just some notes on gunnery what is and isn't modeled.
1. Wind is modeled. Wind in fighter gunnery realy has no effect , the resone for this is that both target and shooter are also moving with the wind, so in a steady state wind ( which in the real world is the case most of the time unless you are at low alt.) shooter,bullet,target are all effected the same amount with the wind. and every thing looks the same in relation to eachother.
Yeah well it's pretty annoying when you're trying to kill tanks with rockets :mad:
4. All icon ranges are in yards.
I had just allways assumed it was meters, learn something new everyday.
-
Is dispersion dependant on constant firing time, that is, long bursts? AFAIK, a "cold" gun will be more accurate than a reheated one.
-
OIO is correct. Einstien not needed to figure that out.
-
A comment on the accuracy of guns in WW2:
Most aircraft guns were not very accurate, especially recoil-operated ones. This was because the priorities were a high rate of fire and good reliability, both of which were aided by loose tolerances. Loose tolerances are not compatible with accuracy.
The .303 Brownings as used in RAF fighters achieved 75% of shots within 5 mils accuracy (that is, within an 18" circle at 100 yards). They needed a circle a yard wide to cover all of the bullets fired. This was fairly typical.
Ground tests of the .50 MGs in a B-24 showed accuracies varying between 10 and 20 mils at 600 yards for the turret guns, and no less than 35 mils for the waist guns - that is, ten feet at 100 yards!
This illustrates the fact that hand-aimed, flexibly-mounted guns were highly inaccurate, even when fired on the ground at a stationary target. Factor in aircraft movement, target movement and the battering of the slipstream against the gun barrel, and it's easy to see why such guns rarely shot down anything.
If the B-24's waist guns are typical (and I have no reason to suspect otherwise) than at the 300 yards range you're talking about a burst of fire which would have been spread across a circle of thirty feet diameter even under ideal conditions. I'll leave you to work out how many shots you'd have to fire to have a significant number hit the same spot on a wing which is edge-on to you.....
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
B-17:
ball turret > dia. 15' - 8.3mils
upper turret > dia. 21' - 11.7mils
chin turret > dia. 23' - 12.6 mils
waist(closed) dia. 26' - 14.3mils
side nose > dia. 34' - 18.7mils
tail turret > dia 45' - 25mils
B-24:
ball turret > dia. 15' - 8.3mils
upper turret > dia. 20' - 11.2mils
nose turret > dia. 23' - 12.9mils (Emerson)
nose turret > dia. 35' - 19.3mils (Motor Prod.)
waist(closed) dia. 23' - 12.9mils
waist(open) dia. 63' - 35.6mils
tail turret > dia 35' - 19.3mils
A large Missconception is that dispersion makes gunnery harder at long ranges, it acctualy helps you in getting a lucky hit.
a lucky hit is one thing, lucky hits that kill you are different.
With the exception of the 3cm and hisso I have havent seen any 1 round kill a plane except when it was a pk. But dispersion at ranges should make it very hard to land many "lucky" hits.
-
HT,
Does AH model different bullet drop (from gravity) when your firing at angles that arent perpendicular to gravity?
Magoo
-
Originally posted by Magoo
HT,
Does AH model different bullet drop (from gravity) when your firing at angles that arent perpendicular to gravity?
Magoo
You can test it for yourself.
1. Start AH offline, although this works online too.
2. Type ".target xxx", where xxx is the desired distance in yds.
3. Fly due north, you will see a large bullseye.
4. Get inverted and fire away.
tells us what you find.
-
That he's still flying perpendicular?
-
--- BenDover: ---
That he's still flying perpendicular?
--- end ---
That his bullets don't fall up ( world cordinate system ) and down ( plane cordinate system ), like they did in some fighter duel version on amiga if I recall right.
// fats
-
Hit sprites
I would have thought hit sprites would vary with round ( its KE, chemical and incendary content) as well as the target object.
eg would the sprite expected from an aluminium fuselage be the same as a wooden one or even a fabric covered one?
Are Sprites generated on your FE? or returned from the targets FE?
I rem from AW that it allowed visualisation of FE generated "hits" to be turned off (local hits on/off). Turning them off was more accurate. With them on you could appear to render serious damage to your opponent and pull of the attack only to learn that it had not been the case. In AH (on occasion)the sprites can seem to light up your opponent and give a far greater impression of damage than actually the case.
Rounds
Via TW we now have a wealth of evidence re diferent rounds from AP thru Incendary to explosive plus combinations of the same. I believe it would add to the game to give choice in the hanger across that range of round commonly available to that AC (via a clipboard drop down rather than the hanger floor)
Did I read that Russians had green tracers?
-
Hit sprites in AH are generated on the shooter's FE, and so are hits.
Yeah, the russians had green AND red tracers, i think the green is from burning copper?
-
Originally posted by BenDover
Hit sprites in AH are generated on the shooter's FE, and so are hits.
But whilst shooters FE tells the targets FE (via the server) that he just sufferred hits (to his wing) its targets FE which decides and advises everyone that his aileron has just fallen off..............
-
Hasn't worked that way when I've seen some lag, you know the kind of lag where he's there one sec, the other he's 1.5k off your wing?
I've fulled the guy fulla holes, then when he exited the warp stream, he had no wings and was on fire :)
-
Originally posted by BenDover
I've fulled the guy fulla holes, then when he exited the warp stream, he had no wings and was on fire :)
Then it did work that way......
-
Hey fats are you an AutoCAD user ? (speaking about WCS & PCS) ;)
-
clouds,
No. I've done my share of 3d modelling with other packages and some 3d programming how ever.
// fats
-
Are you speaking about CATIA ?
-
S!
About the distance:
"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. "
Captain H. Wind's Lectures On Fighter Tactics (http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-CaptainWindsAirCombatTacticsLecture.html) (from 1943)
-
The only reason experienced pilots get long range shots in AH are the hit sprites which indicate hits even if the target is behind the fuselage. I have a video where I shoot long aimed bursts at a 1.3k B17 and continue to paint him TOTALLY WHITE with hits untill he breaks in pieces. In real life the pilot could at most guess if or not his rounds hit the plane or not (except maybe some lucky flash or large debris now and then.)
This is completely unrealistic and allows the shooter to adjust fire to ranges which in reality would give no visual feedback of the hits.
This is the single biggest difference in AH and IL2 gunnery - and you can see the effect readily.