Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: F4UDOA on August 01, 2003, 11:32:19 AM
-
I hate to beat a rotting carcus but...
I was looking at the AH kill stats last night and noticing how good the F4U-1 is in AH. Kind of happy actually that an aircraft with the attributes of 1943 Marine fighter meant to kills Zekes could do well in an arena full of turn fighters and late war monsters.
Then for some reason I decided to look at the stats for the F4U-1C. OMG!! That thing is killing NIK2's and La7's at a 2 to 1 ratio. You would think that aircraft was the penultimate fighting machine of the 20th century.
Then I noticed that while the F4U-1 series had difficulty with the same aircraft that the F4U-1C was dominating. So I tried to figure out why? And the fact it the the F4U-1 holds just about every card there is except cannons.
So what gives? Were cannon armed fighters really that much more dominate in WW2 than MG armed ones? No, so why are two A/C with such similar attributes so different in the MA? Absolutely not, in fact the NIK2, F4U-1C, FW190A8 and many other A/C with heavy gun packages were not nearly as succesfull in shooting down enemy fighter A/C as there MG counter parts. Why would the P-51 with 4 20mils be switched to 4 .50cal machines guns as a P-51B?
I still believe that perking the F4U-1C was a work around forced by the community because no reasonable explanation could be found for the huge difference in AH between cannon and MG hits.
In fact looking at AHT I found where it shows the weight of fire per second as being very slightly in favor of the cannon armed A/C but not by much. 9.54lbs in the 6 .50 cal config and 11.60lbs for the 4 20mill config.
My solution is this since I already know what the community response will be. The answer is the cannon rounds are HE and explode. This is true, and while the explosive force done by these rounds is easily calculated the damage done by them is completely subjective.
So my request to HTC is reduce the catostrophic nature of cannons in AH. I don't mean parity because they(mg's and cannon) are not equal. But there can be no question that cannons in AH are rendering void the work being done to achieve correct FM's.
Let the pilot decide the outcome. End the "snap shot" in AH
-
F4U-1C isnt dominant because of its guns. Its because it is flown by better pilots (perk plane) and it is used as a vulchmobile.
-
It's the cannon's, those Hispanos are very deadly any 4 Gun Hispano plane is a killing Machine, the Huricane & Typhone are extreamly deadly, It is also the huge ammo load the C caries that helps, and as you say the stats are effected because of it's use as a vulch machine.
The curent Gun model favors The 50 cal and the Hispano, thruth be know they othe cannons in the game are typicaly underrated relative to their historical effectivenss, as are other guns which used a chemical engery componet, the MG 131, the Breda 12.7 and the MG FF and Type 99 MK I for example, but all of this is realy an argument almsot about what once was, since this is all changing in AH2, the gun model is being changed.
-
Originally posted by Furball
F4U-1C isnt dominant because of its guns. Its because it is flown by better pilots (perk plane) and it is used as a vulchmobile.
Or one might say.. that it is flown more conservatively.. because it cost's perks if you lose it.
The C-Hogs cannon's DO kick like a mule tho!
-
Originally posted by brady
The curent Gun model favors The 50 cal and the Hispano, thruth be know they othe cannons in the game are typicaly underrated relative to their historical effectivenss, as are other guns which used a chemical engery componet, the MG 131, the Breda 12.7 and the MG FF and Type 99 MK I for example, but all of this is realy an argument almsot about what once was, since this is all changing in AH2, the gun model is being changed.
Brady,
Are you saying that they are going to add a little more lethality to the German guns! THERE IS A GOD!
-
I can't recal it saying anywhere that the gun models are being changed.
Only the terrain, planes are being remodeled, the FM as well.. not the gun models.
AND HOPEFULLY THE GV DAMAGE MODEL!
Edit: oh yeah, the graphics engine too.. But that really isnt a model..
-
Flown more conservatively?
EL WRONGO!!
The F4U-1C has over 7,000 kills this past tour.
That is more than the F4U-1. They are very common and used in furballs and B&Z alike.
You could use that arguement for the 262 or Tempest but no way the C-Hog.
By the way most WW2 pilots never even fired their guns unless they wee within 150yards. And there are many reports of aircraft on both sides coming back with up to 40 cannon hits and surviving. It is not even within the realm of possibilty that this could happen in AH currently.
Maybe this will be corrected with a new damage model but the current model is not realistic in the differance between what makes or does not make a successful fighter aircraft.
-
Where is the stats page? I've lost it over the months.
I've pretty much flown the F4U-1 this tour. Didn't do too bad in it; particularly against the P51s. La7s still give me some problems, but almost every one that's killed me has done so by running me down; I'm not very good at knife-fighting a corsair yet.
I also can't hit squat with cannon. Well. This last week I've been flying the CT to avoid the Pizza, and I can kill things in the N1K2 now. I just put the muzzle of the cannon up against the aircraft in question before I pull the trigger...
-
F4UDOA,
Wasn't it the US Navy that concluded that one Hispano Mk II / M2 20mm cannon was the eqivilent of three Browning .50 cals?
-
Ya it's crazy being able to nail planes at 1200 with 50cal's and Hispanos, I got two Kills with the P47 on Gerges at 1000 in the CT daybefore yesterday, not that this is unushual mind you. I argee that presently it is a bit far feteched and realy favors those guns with the better balisitcs and tends to degrade those with more reliance on the chemical engery component, a clear example of this is the differance between the efectivenss of the Type 99 MK I and the Type 99 MK II cannons which fired the same prodegctile, see this link:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=787074#post787074
A Quote from Tony's sight from the above mentioned thread:
"if the projectile is primarily relying on HE blast or incendiary effect, the velocity with which it strikes the target is almost immaterial. Provided that it hits with sufficient force to penetrate the skin and activate the fuze, the damage inflicted will remain constant. "
This effect is not I beleave represented in AH to any apricable degree which is why the Hispano and the 50cal are so effective in the game.
I do beleave they are changing the Gun model Rutalient, I recall seeing it mentioned on the AHII forum.
-
You are incorect brady we do not have plans to change the balistic model.
And incase you disn't notice you and F4U are arguing the oposit side of things he thinks cannons are favored you think 50s are farvored.
HiTech
-
O, I am sry I thought it was mentioned that they were remodeled. thanks for clearing that up.:)
I think that the chemical engery reliant weapons are diminished in ther effectivenss out of historical proportion, that is the slower MV weapons that fire HE rounds, it is not nescessarly a 50 cal thing.
This from above:
"if the projectile is primarily relying on HE blast or incendiary effect, the velocity with which it strikes the target is almost immaterial. Provided that it hits with sufficient force to penetrate the skin and activate the fuze, the damage inflicted will remain constant. "
This effect is not I beleave represented in AH to any apricable degree which is why the Hispano and the 50cal are so effective in the game.
This would be in keeping twith the Typee 99 isue mentioed above.
-
Completely off topic (my apologies, F4U), but I think Brady *IS* HiTech. Do we know anyone else who can squeeze so many typos into such a short post? :D
By the way, my dad harmonized his guns out to 1000 yards, and they were known to make hits out that far on (relativly) stationary targets. Against a maneuvering target things were much different. He was in the Emerson nose turret on B24s.
I've found this to be reasonably well duplicated in AH. Against a straight and level (or at least steady) target I can get occasional pings from 1k to 1.2k yards. Short of a lucky pilot hit, or a hit on something already damaged, I only try this to get the con turning.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread...
-
Originally posted by hitech
You are incorect brady we do not have plans to change the balistic model.
And incase you disn't notice you and F4U are arguing the oposit side of things he thinks cannons are favored you think 50s are farvored.
HiTech
How about the damagemodel?
Are you contemplating modifying HE round damage (not balistics), or are you of the opinion it's ok?
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Flown more conservatively?
EL WRONGO!!
The F4U-1C has over 7,000 kills this past tour.
]
Well Glad we got that cleared up.
Originally posted by F4UDOA
By the way most WW2 pilots never even fired their guns unless they wee within 150yards. And there are many reports of aircraft on both sides coming back with up to 40 cannon hits and surviving. It is not even within the realm of possibilty that this could happen in AH currently.
]
Guess it depends on which books you read... they didn't often get to count the number of holes in the ones that didn't come back.
Some years back I spoke to a B17 pilot that was shot down and a prisoner of war. He spoke at a graduation for the Survival Escape Resistance and Evasion course at Fort Bragg. He said that it only took 4-5 20mm rounds to take down a B17 and maybe half that from 30mm. Of course it had to be in the right places obviously.
Mentioned in this thread.. is a question I have often had. The cannon rounds, given the necessary penetration should still effect the same amount of damage based on HE.
The MG rounds being kinetic should become less potent.. significantly so at longer ranges.
I have no idea if this is modeled in AH... I know I rarely fire outside of 400 if I have a choice.. however... at 200 the FW just obliterates most fighters. Not as good on the bombers obviously.
-
HT,
I don't think or know weather the ballistics model has anything to do with the dramatic differance between MG and cannon hits.
The area where I go off the tracks is what happens when that shell hits.
For instance I know when you shoot at a building with Panzer fire it takes XX amount of hits to destroy it. My question or statement would be that it takes far few to many hits to destroy an Aircraft with a cannon in AH than I believe it would in real life.
I know you have mentioned the damage model will change graphically but will it change in damage effects from impact as well?
-
Again, I'm not sure we can broad brush say that the cannons are too powerful, probably anymore than we can say they aren't. We can probably draw some conclusions based on comparison to the MGs.
How much it takes to down a given airplane has an awful lot to do with what is hit.. and speaks as much to the damage model as it does the gun.
As for rounds to down a fighter.... an excerpt from this web site...
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/hanstate.html
Facts are that Marseille is still acknowledged as among the best marksmen in the Luftwaffe. The Germans were very meticulous in filing combat reports with all relevant data to include time of battle, area of operation, opposition encountered, as well as an in-depth armorers report. At the end of a mission, the armorers would count the number of bullets and cannon shells expended during the fight. Marseille would often average an astonishing 15 bullets required per victory, and this with a combat resulting in his downing of several allied aircraft. No other German pilot was close to Marseille in this area.
Given that Marseille flew the Fredreich and Gustav model 109s, the best he had going for him was 1 x 20mm Cannon and 2 x 7.92mm MGs...
I guess we could go farther and determine rate of fire of the cannon vs the mgs and try and come up with average cannon rounds and 7.92 mm rounds for each plane. (I assume the 15 rounds includes both) It obviously didn't take very many cannon rounds (when they hit) to down a fighter.
-
Hi F4UDOA,
>So what gives? Were cannon armed fighters really that much more dominate in WW2 than MG armed ones? No, so why are two A/C with such similar attributes so different in the MA?
I'm afraid you can't really make reliable conclusions from the arena results of an inhomogenous group of pilots.
However, I'm confident you could make fairly reliable conclusions from flying both types yourself.
Adopt a consistent style, fly for survival, and then look at your kill ratios. Additionally, note down type and aircraft you shoot at, whether you hit, and whether you destroy it with your burst. That will help you to separate the guns from the flying.
This procedure will eliminate a lot of the unknown parameters of general arena flying and give you a pretty good idea of what cannon are really worth.
Well, at least what they're really worth in the arena :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Brady isnt saying that 50s are "favored". He is saying the samething that every one says. 50 cals and Hissos are both killers at range and against gvs. The hisso in AH is both the best gun for a2a as well as air 2 ground, particularly with gv busting. This is "remarkable" in that from what I read the Brits didnt load ap ammo. Nest would be 50 cals.
The mgff and type99 mk1 (109e, 110c, a6m2) require a significant amout of ammo to bring down a fighter. As Brady mentions it would appear the ah dam model relies more on velocity then chemical. Theres a huge difference in say flying an a6m5 with type 99 mk2s and the a6m2 with mk1s. As Tony mentions in that thread Brady quotes
I agree with you that there should not be a huge difference in destructive effect between the two. Probably the major advantage of the higher velocity of the 99-2 was that it improved the hit probability.
Even in close (200yrd) the mk2 are by far more destructive.
Range wasnt factor in choosing gun load outs in ww2 but it certainly is in ah. From what I have read 50 cals were "chosen" based on hit probrability at range. As was the 303s. The brits actually evailed 50s and kept the 303s. They had a flat trajectory and you could get more rounds on target at convergence. I have not seen anything out side some anecdotal accounts that "range" (600-800 yrds) was a factor. There are 3 camps in ah with different views on this.
1. Says long range shots never happen its just "lag".
2. Some say with the amount of rounds the average ah players has fired gives him more "experience" then the average ww2 piot.
3. That they are just rare occurances.
I have seen films of long range shots. I have gotten kills at range and have been killed. So saying its rare or never happens is mostly bs.
The reason the chog with 4 hissos does much better the say the 50cal armed f4u-1 is because the chog can hit at the same range as the 50 but it takes farless ammo to break something or get the kill. Against hard turning aircraft where "snapshots" are the only way to get kills the 4 x hizookas will get the kill where a short burst of 50s wont.
The chog got 20% of the kills in ah not because of pilot skills but because of its guns. It was perked not because of "performance" but its effect on the arena. I was never in the "perk the chog" camp but I think it was a good descision in that it helped gameplay. Theres nothing special in the way the chog performs. It all comes down to those 4 hizookas.
-
F4UDOA, the C-Hog isn't really a good example to use for a typical "cannon" plane. The Hispano can and will kill a plane with 1 hit on a regular basis. One hit to the tail will result in the plane losing either both horizontal stabs (about 50% of the time I'd say), or the vertical stab (about 25%) of the time. About 25% of the time it doesn't kill them. This is just from personal experience, mind you. A lot of the folks that fly Hispano-armed planes say they've never killed someone with one hit, I find that incredibly hard to believe. I usually get about 1 kill a sortie with 1 hit, and it is almost always to the tail. Occasionally you can take a wingtip off with one hit, that will kill maybe half the folks it happens to.
The other 20mm cannons in the game are nowhere even close to the Hispano as far as destructive power goes. If I were to use the .50 as a yardstick, I'd rate the Hispano at about 4 .50s, the La-7 cannons at about 2 .50s (apiece), the Mg151 and the Japanese cannons (N1K, A6M5, Ki-61) at about 1.75 or so, and the MG-FF and A6M2 cannons at about 1.2. The 30mm Mk-108, the 37mm on the Yak, the 40mm on the Hurri-2D, and the 23mm on the IL-2 are in the same "class" as the Hispano as far as destructive power. Actually, the 23mm is pretty comparable to the Hispano, the rest of them hit harder on average but are harder to hit with.
So if you want to nueter the cannon planes, try flying one without Hispanos. You'll see the enormous difference in firepower between 4 Hispanos and say 4 Mg151s (of course, flying the 190A-8 is like torture, but it has fairly heavy firepower, for a non-Hispano plane).
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
You would think that aircraft was the penultimate fighting machine of the 20th century.
Are you saying it was the next to last fighter made in the 20th century?
-
This is the real thing.....
the more of these damages are 20mm,
and german.
Conclusions yours.....
http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/contents.htm
-
For those of you who haven't yet seen it, a comparative analysis of the effectiveness of all WW2 aircraft guns, and of typical fighter armament fits, is here: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm
And for reasons why the USAF/USN made very little use of the Hispano, see: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/US404.htm
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
The hispano is almost a high velocity 50 cal with a hit power of a 20mm cannon - it's not quite as powerful in hitting as the Russian 23mm and its much less powerful than the 30mm class weapons but probability of hitting and especially hitting at very high ranges and high range deflection shots is much much better.
I think we all remember the discussion about AH long range gunnery and where everyone stands on that issue.
The hispanos in AH are simply that much better F4UDOA. :)
-
Mr. Williams, are those the figures HTC uses?
-
In 'Guns of the Royal Air Force 1939-1945' by G.F. Wallace - who was there - there is an account of British tests of the British and US Hispanos which took place early in 1942. The British were unhappy with initial supplies of the American-made guns: "there were frequent misfeeds and lightly struck cap stoppages, and the life of several small components was very short" so a comparative test between one British and three American guns was set up. The intention was to fire 5,000 rounds from each gun without replacing any components. "The British gun fired the full programme but the performance of the American guns was so bad that in each case the trial had to be abandoned before the 5,000 rounds had been fired." The British gun experienced 19 stoppages in firing 5,012 rounds. The American guns experienced 67 stoppages out of 4,092, 97 out of 3,705 and 94 out of 2,610 respectively. Incidentally, Wallace states that the US guns were "beautifully made and better finished than our own" and expressed surprise that although lightly struck caps were a major source of stoppages, even more frequent were mis-feeds.
thats an interesting read Tony Williams, thanks.
-
Tony, our Type99/2 (N1K2) is far more powerful than Mg151/20 (opposite of what these tables say) and comparable in destructive power to hispano (1 ping = damage 90% of times).
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Mr. Williams, are those the figures HTC uses?
Hardly :p
Tony doesnt play AH.........
-
I wish he did!
-
Like some others have pointed out, it's the range factor that makes the real difference. As an example I often mention, FB offers a good standard for comparison - in typical 1941 or 1942 era multiplayer sessions, there are some planes with certain qualities that would probably match our 'Spit' and 'N1K2' in very simular manner - slow/average speed, but outstanding maneuverability and ease of control, easy aiming process, powerful guns - the general 'point and fire' characteristics which people usually complain about.
For instance, FB also has the same Hurricane MkIIc with 4x Hispano MkII installed. Also, the Soviet I-16(Type.24) are armed with simply devastating machine guns(in current version of FB, the Soviet Universal Berezins are an absolute terror).
And yet, there is absolutely no such thing as whining about these planes in the sense that people whine about N1K2s and Spit9s in AH. Sure, some people complain about the strange overheat/stall/climb characteristics of the Hurri2c, some whine about the 'titanium I-16'. I spend as much time in FB forums in AH, also spend any spare time outside of AH in FB - and yet, I have yet to see even a SINGLE instance of people whining about those planes in performance.
Why? Why is that? In 1941~'42 servers, the performance margins between the Yak-1B, Bf109E-7, F-4, or the Fw190A-4 or etc contemporary planes, is not as great as the margin we see in AH - where in the MA, people flying planes that do 360~380mph on the deck still complain about Spits and N1K2s.
..
I have given a lot of thought, and concluded that it is because even the smaller margin in speed performance the I-16s and Hurri2Cs in FB have against their contemporaries, is usually not enough to overcome the usual conditions they fall under - in simple words, I-16s and Hurri2Cs just cannot shoot anything down with such consistency as seen in AH Spits or N1K2s. Why?
Because they are slow. Unless with a huge alt advantage, most usually those planes are too slow to come within 300meters of their target. A clever evasive usually gains enough separation in most cases. That holds the same with AH - with sufficient alt advantage, Spits and N1K2s can catch up briefly with their targets.. but most usually, they never come within 300~400 yards. Almost never. I recall many engagements with the Spits and N1K2s and I can honestly say, I hardly remember any case in which those planes ever came within 300 yards of me(unless I was in a same, or slower plane).
So what's the difference? In one sim, planes have a hard time hitting over 300 meters. The aspect has changed, and in FB, the hitting distances are a bit further than it was in IL-2. But compared to the other, where 400~500 yards are common, 600~700 yards frequent for the skilled, and 800~1000yards if lucky..... just buy enough time to get near 500 yards, and the enemy will be brought down. In a flaming snap of wings or tail section.
...
I am almost certain, that once such difficulties in long range shooting is represented in AH, the whinings about guns, will dissipate in its totality. People complain about many things, modellings and etc, but discussion on the gunnery modelling or how some planes are totally dweeb planes, are not very common. I was actully pretty surprised to see a "n00b plane" thread in FB, for the first time in many months.
We've discussed a lot of possible reasons as why the gunnery is so different from what history offered, but that's for another thread. As long as some guns hit out far and more straight, far enough that the differences in gun characteristics actually come in to play, the more powerful one will always be favored - a little spray with few lucky hits will bring your target down, whereas longer, more precise tracking shots are required for the machine guns.
-
1 hit from a hispano will when the fight at least 50% of the time each additional hit rachets the percentage up about 25%
-
uber hispanos and unuber LW cannons are still true? sheesh..
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
targets.. but most usually, they never come within 300~400 yards. Almost never.
600 yards and you are done, 800 yards and you will be more than probably heavy damaged for one or two lucky hits. We are playing something very different than WW2 aerial combat, but with similar performance planes.
-
I just can't help it......
A whine has been recorded.
:D
-
If people were willing to share enough information, there are ways to separate the effect of the quality of the plane and the quality of the pilot.
Otherwise it is nearly impossible to make the right distinctions.
-blogs
Originally posted by Furball
F4U-1C isnt dominant because of its guns. Its because it is flown by better pilots (perk plane) and it is used as a vulchmobile.
-
MANDOBLE, the Type 99 fires a larger round than the MG 151/20, the Type 99 also fired almost all HEI the tracer round being the only AP round in the chain, while the MG 151/20 fired a more mixed ammo load,The MG 151/20 scores higher do to it's higher rof and the scoring system used to determine overall efectivenss, a scoring system that is not used in AH.
It should also be noted that the table says that figures are for unscnichorised guns, most MG 151/20 instalations in AH are firing throught the proeller arc and suffer a 10% ( I thnk it's 10%) reduction in preformance, the 205 is a good example of the added benifit you get from the guns being out side the propeller arc.
-
the mg 151 in ah are fine. Its the mgff thats a bugger. Same as the type 99 mk1.
-
brady, AFAIK, 205 guns are sync.
MG151/20 CARTRIDGE POWER: 16
MG151/20 GUN POWER: 192
Type99/2 CARTRIDGE POWER: 15
Type99/2 GUN POWER: 120
Not considering ROF, it seems 151/20 is a more destructive weapon.
-
To calculate the destructive power of the gun, the 'POWER' factor from the above table has been multiplied by the RoF, expressed in the number of rounds fired per second. This gives the relative 'GUN POWER'
20x101RB = power = 15 * rof = 'GUN POWER'
20x80RB = power = 14 * rof = 'GUN POWER'
So by Tony's charts a single type 99 mk 2 has a higher "power" then the mg151/20mm. "Gun power" is combination of "power" * rof.
So like Brady said the chart is for unsynched guns. Multiply by synched rof and the "gun power" value you will drop. But it wont change the fact that the type 99 has the potential to be more "desctructive" per round then the mg151.
You cant not consider rof to determin which is a more destructive weapon. 1 20x101RB is more destructive the 1 20x80RB. What makes the mg151 a better weapon is rof.
Just look at the damager column in table 1
type 99 mk2 (20x101RB) = 154
mg151/20 (20X80RB) = 90 / 89 / 206 (M'geschoss)
Its obvious from this which is the more desctructive round (excluding the M'geschoss).
The type 99mk 2 round fer round will do moere damage the the mg151. The mg151 will let you get more rounds on target faster. Just like in ah.
The mg151 is fine.
-
Thanks Batz, so, one of every three rounds of 151/20 would be considerably more destructive.
20x82 damage: 110 / 109 / 236
20x101RB: 154 / 154 / 154
Even so, the overal power of 20x82 (151/20) is 16 compared to 15 for 20x101RB (Type99/2).
BTW, you are considerong 20x80RB, listed for MGFF, not 151/20.
-
I am prety shure Mandabol that the 205's MG 151/20's are mounted outside the covered arc of the prop.
-
The lesser kill ratios of ther F4U-1 can also be attributed to its JABO roll. Very few people select an F4U-1C then take it on higher risk JABO runs. These attack missions expose the plane to more attacks when it is otherwise occupied(bombing, rocketing).
In fact, I'm confident this is a large reason for the disparity in ratios.
-
oops you are right i was cutting and pasting to something else when i must crossed up.
But anyway
20x82RB = 16 power = 110 / 109 / 236
20X10 = 15 power =154
It nots one in every three that is m'geschoss (I will post typical load out later).
In ah we dont have specific round types but averages. Just for arguement if we take the average of the three types API HET and HE (M'geschoss) as listed in Tony's (110+109+236= 455/3 = 151)
154>151 Type 99 mk 2 still is larger.
The Type 99 mk2 is well respresented in AH. So is the mg151/20mm. The type 99 mk1 oth just sux in ah.
-
Where are you guys getting these one hit wonder Hispanos?
I practically never get a good effect from one Hispano hitting, and it's not like I don't use the gun. The same is true of the Type 99 Model II.
Certainly I have a slightly easier time hitting with the Hispano, but the Type 99 Model II and MG151/20 are pretty parable weapons.
I will admit that sometimes a single Hispano hit can be surprising. I had the left wing torn off of my Spitfire Mk XIV by a single hit from a Spitfire Mk IX while I was zooming.
Frankly, the guns that scare me most in AH are the Browning 50 cal and the MK108 30mm. The 50s because they are so easy to hit with, hit at such long ranges and come in such large numbers and the 30mm because it is a one hit one kill weapon. Other than those I don't feel particularly wary around any of the other guns.
-
slightly easier time
Slightly easier.... Just how much 'slightly easier'?
Slightly easier by about 300 yards?
I usually feel safe when I see a plane with one of those 'slightly' worse armaments behind me at 500 yards. But when I see one of those planes armed with 'slightly' easier cannon/gun behind me at 500, I better get ready to open my chute.
That 'slight' difference, determines whether I die or not.
Sure, the Type99 and the MG151/20, even the ShVAKs are pretty good cannons, comparable with the Hispanos.... but only when they are compared within 300~400yards.
And.. how many people actually start firing within 300 yards distance?
-
Not problem with cannons overall in AH, it's a problem with Hispanos. I'd pick 6x50 cal any day over the 4xMg151's and 2x13mm in the 190 A8. 50 cal far better in AH.
Only with Hispano does the cannon become better than 50 cal in AH.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
And.. how many people actually start firing within 300 yards distance?
When I played AH, I wondered if theres ever situations where you are firing within 300 yards, since mostly shooting had to happen at ranges 300 yards or more.
Occasionally 200-300 yards and quite rarely within 200 yards.
-
You talking about AH or in real life?
If its the former, I agree. Opening up inside 300 yards rarely ever happens in AH, since there's no reason to risk missing the target, overshooting the target, colliding with the target etc etc.. when you can just knock them out of the sky, five football fields away.
If your talking about the latter, I find that strange. Annecdotes can be personal, exaggerated, misleading, etc etc and many more things, but it still can hold an inclination of truth.
* People sucked in gunnery in real life
* People needed to go in closer in real life
* Firing at long distances was difficult in real life
* Firing at long distances was ineffective in real life
Yes we're better shots than our real-life counterparts. But would that mean that experience alone will enable us to hit something five~six times further out than it was in real life?
-
Well think of all the people who vulch in the F4U1C compared to those who vulch in the F4U1. Then think about what planes
"mostly" up at capped fields and bingo, do we have a winner? Sad to say vulching is the answer to your question.. Has nothing to do with superior plane =).
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Yes we're better shots than our real-life counterparts. But would that mean that experience alone will enable us to hit something five~six times further out than it was in real life?
As a very rough rule of thumb, typical maximum effective firing distances in RL would seem to have been around 400m against bombers, 250m against fighters flying straight and level, and 100m or less against manoeuvring targets.
Hartmann (of the 350+ claims) preferred to get within 50m before opening fire so he didn't need to bother about estimating deflection.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Stats for the MA are pointless in comparrison to the real war.
Most of the kills were of pilots who were green with very little flying hours. Here in AH most have flown for litterally weeks of flying time. Theres the fact that newbies gravitate toward NIks and spits etc and experts use the F4uC and other perk rides.The fact that perk planes are costly makes people fly them with more care whereas a Nik is free and losing one isnt a problem. The MA in no way reflects the real world.Theres no fear or faults with weapons and engines, no weather no sun glare etc ewtc , you could go on all day.
If anything, I think the 50cals are overly powerfull personally.6 50s in AH are as effective as almost any gun, they just need a split second longer on target. you can cut wings off with them from 500 yards no problem.If you read books written by American veterans they often talk of seeing their bullets bounce off enemy planes. In 'Combat crew' a book written by a top turret gunner and engineer of a B17 he says the 50 cals even bounced off 109's! In AH if you hit an aircraft you never see bullets bounce off, every one hits and connects.
The HE based cannons also in AH dont have the real High explosive effect and this is a real shame. For one thing the German cannon shells were impact fused which meant they exploded on the first thing they touched. There have been gun tests where they placed perspex in front of face hardened armour and they discovered the armour was never peirced because the bullets exploded on contact with the perspex and shattered it leaving the armour behind almost untouched, then when tested on the armour with no perspex in front resulted in something like 6.8mm penetration. We dont have any of this modeled and its silly imo to draw conclusions about weapons effectiveness from stats in the MA.Its just too far removed from the reality of WW2 to be a fair comparison.
If you did tests with the weapons on a stationary object like a hanger and count the number of rounds it takes to kill them off it is very close to the charts of ted williams (if you convert the numbers to a sort of percentage), what we dont have is those 'happy accident' type hits where they either cause severe damage or like the german bullets should do , cause little deep impact damage but severe surface damage. Its pretty good how it is but its hardly a perfect copy of the real world. Its just a close 'representation' at best.
-
<>
i can't even belive you posted that , 50 cal "bouncing off' thin alum sheet metal, it must have been the super secret german extra hardened alum sheet metal armor designed by tank kurt.
ya , das ist da ticket.
-
I did not mean that to look like I was saying the Hispano Mk II, Type 99 Model 2 and MG151/20 were parable. I meant it to say that I consider the Type 99 Model 2 and MG151/20 parable. I consider the Hispano better than either the Type 99 Model 2 or MG151/20.
The descriptions that I find most off in this thread are the claims like "80% of the time a single Hispano hit causes damage".
In my experience a single Hispano hit causes damage, maybe as much as 25% of the time and significant damage (not a landing gear, flap, elevator or aileron) 5-10% of the time.
Multiple strikes tend to total the target.
-
Originally posted by john9001
<>
i can't even belive you posted that , 50 cal "bouncing off' thin alum sheet metal, it must have been the super secret german extra hardened alum sheet metal armor designed by tank kurt.
ya , das ist da ticket.
It all depends on the striking angle - most of the surfaces you will see in a head-on Bf 109 are at very fine angles and a bullet would only strike a very glancing blow. Stories of those same .50s bouncing off (admittedly tougher) MiG-15s in Korea are commonplace.
Furthermore, the later versions of the Bf 109s, intended for bomber attack, carried extra armour protection specifically to defeat the .50s.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Originally posted by hazed-
The HE based cannons also in AH dont have the real High explosive effect and this is a real shame. For one thing the German cannon shells were impact fused which meant they exploded on the first thing they touched. There have been gun tests where they placed perspex in front of face hardened armour and they discovered the armour was never peirced because the bullets exploded on contact with the perspex and shattered it leaving the armour behind almost untouched, then when tested on the armour with no perspex in front resulted in something like 6.8mm penetration. We dont have any of this modeled and its silly imo to draw conclusions about weapons effectiveness from stats in the MA.Its just too far removed from the reality of WW2 to be a fair comparison.
The early German fuzes were instant-action, but they developed delayed-action ones some time in 1941-2.
There is an inevitable tension in AH between the wish to represent actual plane and weapon performance as closely as possible, and an acknowledgement that they can't compare with RL. I expect that's a balance the programmers have to keep struggling with!
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
i can't even belive you posted that , 50 cal "bouncing off' thin alum sheet metal, it must have been the super secret german extra hardened alum sheet metal armor designed by tank kurt.
ya , das ist da ticket.
I've seen .30-06 rounds bounce off of water. I have no problem believing a .50 would skip off aluminum plate. as Tony said it's all in the angle at the time of impact
-
Karnak, the power of the Hispanos are fine. It's the frequency of those multiple hits at far distances which bring out the illusion of the '1-hit Hispano'.
With other cannons, you can almost count how much rounds you're hit with. Particularly with the single MG151/20 mounted on the 109s. I can count every time I've been hit with it, unless a barrage of 151/20s kill me in a split second.
But with the Hisps, it goes either "thump - kachink(parts fell off)" or "thu-thump - kachink(parts fall off)"... or, it can even be "thump - System: You have shot down by....".. when the range was like 500~600 yards, too.
Batz has once tested, and pointed out the "200 yard lag" is most likely exaggerated, and in most instances lag never causes FE differences more than 50~100 yards.
This probably means, in my layman's head, Hispanos, can hit and deal destruction to your plane so fast that the damage sounds or instant death seems to clog the rest of the 'hit' sound from playing. Whatever the reason is, the sound only gives out one 'thump', when multiple shots connect.
People begin to think a single hit has destroyed their parts off, when in truth multiple rounds hit with very short intervals.
...
But really, nobody cares whether they heard a hit sound once, twice or thrice.
The real problem is this:
People don't complain when they get hit like that when the bogey is behind you at 100 yards. That means you sucked big time, and let the Hispano armed plane get to you that close.
But people do start complaining in disbelief when they get hit like that out at 500~600 yards, slow but steady separation from the Hispano armed plane, and doing a slow jink left and right. The guy behind points, aims and pulls, and a sudden thud will hit you, and hit you bad.
Now, in that sort of a situation, how in the world did that cannon land enough hits on a same spot, to cause structural failure? From 500~600 yards away??
No wonder people call it the Hizooka.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
People begin to think a single hit has destroyed their parts off, when in truth multiple rounds hit with very short intervals.
I never count the sounds, but the tracers. Looking at my six while a single tracer connects my plane. BTW, single sound. Most of the time the damage is radiator gone.
-
ask wilbus how far out he was when he took the wing off my spit 14 in a deflection shot with .50 cals.:eek:
-
I´m still convinced that Hispona shells are overmoddeld for long range shots, and Mg-151 rounds probably undermodelled. But as long as i don´t know the exact velocity in AH of each shell at 100 and for example 1000 yards i can´t make an exact proof.
Furthermore, i once tested offline to shoot at the drones from very close range, and got the feeling that hit area (especially of the wing) is larger than the structure. Maybe the hit area of the wing is modelled bigger, or the shell is bigger. In any case you could get a hit with the center of the hit flash a little bit above or below the wing. So it´s maybe a bit easier in AH to hit than it was in real life, what helps especially at longer ranges.
niklas
-
Originally posted by niklas
I´m still convinced that Hispona shells are overmoddeld for long range shots, and Mg-151 rounds probably undermodelled. But as long as i don´t know the exact velocity in AH of each shell at 100 and for example 1000 yards i can´t make an exact proof.
Qoute from 'Flying Guns: WW2':
"German information from a different source document indicated that HS 404 HET shells slowed from 880 to 675 m/s at 300 m and about 500 m/s at 600 m, reductions of 23 % and 43 % respectively."
In contrast, the 20 mm HE-T (117g) from an MG 151 was doing around 540 and 410 m/s respectively at the same distances, while the 92g M-Geschoss was doing 490 and 310 m/s.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Hehehe, I was at 850 yards on your spit 14's six when you pulled up in a loop, let the guns in the A20 play and and put a good 1-2 second burts in your wing :D
-
Git!:D
-
Geez,
1. Please don't turn this into a Luftwaffa is undermodeled thread. That is not what this is and there is enough of that going right now. See other thread for that.
2. This is not a whine about Hizooka's. I rarely get killed by them, in fact the majority of cannon armed dweebs are not hispano, they are Japanese in the NIK2 or Russian in the La-7. The ones that bother me the most are in the NIK2 much more than the C-Hog.
The Fact is
Most pilots in wartime never fired unless they were right on top of their targets. 150meters or less.
Bullets of many calibers can and did "bounce off". Just because it doesn't seem feasable doesn't mean it can't happen. I have read reports from pilots on all fronts reporting this. Are they all full of Sh*t? Or do we think we know to much? A rock skipping off of water is a good analogy.
And another thing
I don't care if someone has a mine shell or a howizter shell. You may know the exact force of the explosion but the damage done to the target is 100% subjective. Frankly I find the damage model in the TA more realistic, more challenging and more enjoyable. But it is my opinion and I can back it up with as much annecdotal evidence as anybody.
In WW2 there were many reports of pilots landing on carriers with up to 40 cannon holes in them. This is not only unlikely it is impossible in AH for this to happen. In AH one hit from an Osty at any range is death. IRL many fighters absorded hits from high caliber AA and returned home. I have never survived a hit from an osty.
IMHO the damage model needs a major overhaul in AH.
Everything from .30cal buff guns severing wings at 500 yards to A6M5's that take more damage than any American Navy plane.
Tone the hits down and the game becomes more ACM intensive and less HO and front quarter reliant.
-
F4UDOA,
The -1's stats for last tour are negatively skewed, I didn't fly it much last tour. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused and for any false impressions regarding it's performance....I'm back in it this tour....carry on.
:D
-
And... ...do we want damage to be halved farther than 300 yards just to accomodate our air combat to WW2 standars? I want.
-
Originally posted by Tony Williams
Qoute from 'Flying Guns: WW2':
"German information from a different source document indicated that HS 404 HET shells slowed from 880 to 675 m/s at 300 m and about 500 m/s at 600 m, reductions of 23 % and 43 % respectively."
And what do you think, does the AH HS shell slows down to 43% at 600m?? Imo not. Because i think they made a serious mistake. I know that there´s a AP chart around. Imo HTC raised the curve simply to higher muzzle velocity. but the AP round is heavier and has better shape. So IMO (!!) and without any serious proof i assume that the HS shell in AH has the higher muzzle velocity of the HE shell compared to the AP shell (faster acceleration in the barrel, lighter), but NOT the faster decellaration in the air once it flies, and NOT the worse aerodynamics of the flat nose.
On the other hand, we all know that there´s a german mine shell velocity chart out there. The mine shell has higher muzzle velocity than the HE shell, but once in air it slows down faster - less mass simply. Now what happens when we drop the curve down to the initial velocity of the HE shell? Lower muzzle velocity AND bad trajectory.
This is my theory, HTC may check it if i´m right, without their data i can´t check it whether i´m correct or not.
niklas
-
Mandoble,
I could care less about ballistics. I care about the damage caused by each round.
We are bombarded with infra red and gamma rays from the sun everyday. But is does not blow big pieces of us off. The sun is not porked, thats just the way it is.
The cannons in AH could be accurate to 2,000yards, it doesn't mean your wing should fall off everytime they hit you.
-
I love this game, it's so much more fun than Pong.
-
I could care less about ballistics. I care about the damage caused by each round.
damn that might have to make a signature.
FYI ballistics is the main factor in determining the damage caused by a given round. (even a HE rounds damage will be determined by how far it's ballistics will allow it to penitrate). you can't have a realistic discusion on damage without discusing ballistics.
-
Ballistics in the game seem to be modelled very well. This makes it easy not to care about it for most people. Most people only want things fixed if they are broken.
It constantly amuses me to see how many people cannot seperate the issues of per-round lethality from ballistics. I have never seen a well done test of the AH guns which showed much difference in the per-round damage inflicted by hispano shells vs. Mg151 shells. Of course, the much better ballistics of the Hispano rounds means that is significantly easier to hit with more of them, particularly at longer ranges... But this simple fact confuses a lot of people.
Hooligan
-
It constantly amuses me to see how many people cannot seperate the issues of per-round lethality from ballistics.
because the issues cannot be separated. a round does 'x' damage at 100 meters, how much should it do at 600 meters?
still doing 'x'? no it wouldn't but how much less? the damage would change (decrease as the range is extended), and the degree of change would be determined by things like mussel velocity, weight of the round, drag coefficients, or in a word ballistics.
-
to those who know much more about this game than I do. does the damage model take into account the angle at which a round hits. or would a round impacting at a 45 deg angle have the same damage as one that lands perpendicular to the surface
-
Well, it depends on which Pong.
The German version of Pong had much better machining on the face of the paddles to give a much truer bounce and the balls were true spheres of much more consistent density. Thus, you got much more accurate gameplay.
The US version use the sloppy massed produce paddles and pong balls of dubious quality.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
to those who know much more about this game than I do. does the damage model take into account the angle at which a round hits. or would a round impacting at a 45 deg angle have the same damage as one that lands perpendicular to the surface
Im pretty sure it does not.
It is very hard, almost impossible, to create an accurate DM.
Penetration before an HE shell goes of is important but how do you calculate it.
You could give damage from velocity to the round and then add explosive damage.
Maybe thats what they do currently.
That could explain the Hispano power.
Its not accurate though.
What you would need to do is place the explosion at the right place on the plane by penetration.
Does anyone know how they calculate damage in AH?
-
Well, it depends on which Pong.
The German version of Pong had much better machining on the face of the paddles to give a much truer bounce and the balls were true spheres of much more consistent density. Thus, you got much more accurate gameplay.
The US version use the sloppy massed produce paddles and pong balls of dubious quality.
Toad
Even though they were sloppy, used by "average" players and four out of five broke under hard play... there was always a truckload of pong systems waiting at the loading dock to flood the shelves. Thus glaring mediocrity managed to defeat genius, skill and precision engineering.
Charon
-
I could care less about ballistics. I care about the damage caused by each round.
We are bombarded with infra red and gamma rays from the sun everyday. But is does not blow big pieces of us off. The sun is not porked, thats just the way it is.
The cannons in AH could be accurate to 2,000yards, it doesn't mean your wing should fall off everytime they hit you.
It just means everytime you've been hit ONE time, you're probably being hit with multiple shells from multiple cannons on the same spot. Thus, your wing will fall off everytime they hit you.
Soooo...
How the hell do they hit like that?
That's where ballistics, or rather, the long-range gunnery aspect of AH inevitably comes into discussion.
-
All and every bullet fired to me from dead six ricochet everywhere, even birds nearby, just to land into my radiator.
-
Kweassa, your point may be true if every single tracer represents several rounds hitting on the same spot.
-
Originally posted by Charon
Thus glaring mediocrity managed to defeat genius, skill and precision engineering.
Charon
You forgot "once again". :D
-
This might be of interest (from 'Flying Guns: WW2' again):
"The factors described in this section make any simple assessment of effective range very difficult. For example, one British Air Ministry document assessed the kill probability of a 2.5 second burst from a quartet of Hispano Mk II as 80% at 275 m and 60% at 365 m. This is rather meaningless, however, without knowing the nature of the assumed target and the circumstances of the attack. "
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Originally posted by Hooligan
Of course, the much better ballistics of the Hispano rounds means that is significantly easier to hit with more of them, particularly at longer ranges... But this simple fact confuses a lot of people.
Hooligan
Read what i wrote. I once tested the deceleration of the Hispano shell, and it was comparable to the .50cal AP. So i´m sure that the Hispano shell has the high inital muzzle velocity of the HE shell (correct), but the low decelaration of the AP shell (incorrect) due to higher weight and better shape.
And this would mean that all Hispano fliers go out since 2 years with highly overmodelled weapons for long range shots...
The Hispano shell does definitly NOT slow down by 40% the first 600 yards in AH! Another hint...
niklas
-
Thus, your wing will fall off everytime they hit you.
Say's who?
The Ballistics Gods?
There is a huge leap with ballistics modeling that says if I'm shot then I die. This is simply not true.
Every object that is shot is not completely destroyed no matter what kind of round or rounds hits (except maybe 88MM). Objects of varying degrees of hardness in real life and have amazing degree of durability, even those that seem fragile.
I can produce a million stories and pictures of A/C that have had parts shot off or through that have no earthly business flying.
Also at 300+yards (well within the killing range of all cannons in AH) on a maneuvering target how hard would it be to but multiple rounds in a small enough area to cause catosrophic damage IRL? Then you make the assumption that the cannon hit or hits have done enough damage to destroy the vehicle. This is not true.
I would say that most A/C that are hit are not hit in an area that is
1. Critical- Such as a main spar, gas tank or pilot.
2. Most hits do not kill the pilot.
3. Even if the engine is hit it does not destroy the structure of the airplane or even stop the engine.
4. Most hits do not occur in optimal range IE less than 200 yards.
Then from that point where the aircraft is hit you have to sustain some amount of damage. This is where I disagree with the current AH model.
I believe the occurance of complete explosions is way to high. And the occurance of catostrophic damage is way to high based on a over calculation of damage sustained for each round.
Remember we have the same damage model that allowed Panzers to be destroyed by .50 cal. The damage hardness was changed in the vehicals but was not in the A/C (to my knowledge).
What makes you think that having your wing fall off after 1 or 2 cannon hits is anymore realistic than a tank being destroyed by heavy MG fire?
-
What difference does any of this even make?
It's a game....killin folks is fun...fly what you like and learn to kill with it...it's simple.
-
Well if your a history buff and an exwargame geek it makes a huge differance, I mean heck why not just fly FA or play Pong, the Reasion I fly AH is because it is (or was) one of the most realistic and chalanging of all flight sim's, the more I have played the game the more I have realised that their are wholes in the realism, some are obviously game play conshions and I realy dont have a big problem with those in general since they are nescessary evial's:
Examples of those:
Not being able to kill the troops in the back of the M3/LVT,goon.
Not having AP in the Osty.
Generic ordance(torps, AP bombs,missing ect).
Ship damage model or the lack their of.
Cockpits, being non historical.
Howeaver things that distrack for the Historical aspect of the game like the way the guns are modeled are very anoying, since they could be adjusted to better represent thier Historical values/effect's.
All those little A historic aspect's realy bug some people thats why you see SO many threads like this one, form people who like the history of these planes people like F4U who love the history of this stuff, they post preformance numbers and they debate them, the guns are another area, the load out options are yet anoter ect, people who are realy into these planes want to be able to use them the way were in the war, they want to be able to put 4 60KG bombs on the N1K2-J and wounder why they cant have that load out option, smae goes for all the other planes they wounder why the P47D-30 is still carying all that ordance when it never did in real life, it might seam small and trival to the cashual observer but it begins to bug some folks.
-
(http://www.byterapers.com/~grendel/photos/hallinportti052003/HPIM0004.JPG)
-
What this casual observer doesn't see is any proof that HTC's modeling is wrong.
This is from two different points of view.
I haven't seen HTC publish the data from which they derive their formulas/gameplay.
I haven't seen those that contend it's wrong publish the data from which they arrive at the conclusion that HT is wrong.
For example, before anyone can even begin to talk ballistics, you have to know the ballistic coefficient of the projectile. These numbers are available on the net for some of the Allied rounds, notably the .50BMG (which has an outstanding BC) but they are extremely difficult to find for the Axis rounds.
Basically, everyone here floats their opinions. Some people have more knowledge than others in the area of ballistics/gunnery but NO ONE knows how HT actually has it set up. All comments are based on perception from playing the game and perception of what it should be based on ........ not much at all.
-
I know Pyro has the TM 1985 series (in part since I sent him a coppy of the Japanese Volums), this series gives very precise details on Japanese(other volums cover other countries) ordance virtualy all of the info anyone could want on all WW2 explosive ordance is contained in these book's(they are readly available for order as well) and this seris covers all countries involved in the war, I may be mistaken but I beleave he has the German books as well, as far as the info being scarse I dont realy think this can be said to be true espicahly with great sources available on these weapons from noted auther's/experts like Tony, and the above mentioned refrences.
I think their have been several arguments above that have been put forth that seam to make valaid cases, at least one, my case for the descrepancy in the Type 99's MKI and MK II effect on impact is clearly presented, and it clearly differes from what one would expect it to based on know data and the openions of expert's.
It is true we do not know exactly how HTC has set it up, but we also, or some of us, have some issue/ questions regarding the outcome of that set up process, namely the effect's were seeing apear to not jive with what we would expect.
-
The Air Force ran a study of WWII aircraft losses. I've got a copy of it, and in one portion of the study they focus on what particular systems of aircraft resulted in their loss etc. The did this by looking at losses of navy aircraft (F6F, F4U, TBM, SB2C) over a period of time which included hundreds of aircraft damaged and lost as a result of 7.7mm, 12.7mm, 20mm, 37mm etc fire (they do a breakdown of differences between results from flak damage and aircraft fire damagem, but the differences aren't too noticeable).
I think most will agree that in AH structural failure (a wing being blown off) or loss of control surfaces (elevator, horizontal stabilizer etc.) are the leading causes of death. In the study they found that only in a very small percentage of cases did hits to these system lead to a loss of the aircraft. In fact I think there wasn't a single case of an aircraft loss due to a control surface hit in the period of their study. What they did find was that the overwhelming majority of aircraft losses were the result of hits to the pilot or cockpit controls, engine, fuel or oil systems. Also they found that in the majority of cases (like 75% or so IIRC), any damage to these lead to the loss of the aircraft. Hits to the fuel system almost invariably lead to fires, oil and engine hits caused engine failure most of the time even on these durable radial engined aircraft. And hits to the pilot/cockpit area usually killed the pilot or rendered the aircraft unflyable.
Another thing they found was that hits to the hydraulic system usually resulted in the loss of the aircraft, but after it returned to base (flaps and gear not functioning). It's a pretty interesting read. I think you can still order reprints of it through the Rand Corporation.
-
very interresting sable , but exactly how do they know how a plane was shot down and what systems were hit? did the NTSB do a investigation of each crash site, or did the Air Force just make a "educated guess"?
-
Well Brady can you give me the Ballistic Coefficient of the more prominent LW projectiles their individual weights and their muzzle velocity?
The height of the gun sight above the actual barrel would be great as well. I know this varies between aircraft and even between guns on aircraft (wing and cowl).
With those numbers we could run some good trajectories and energy computations at various ranges.
-
Originally posted by john9001
very interresting sable , but exactly how do they know how a plane was shot down and what systems were hit? did the NTSB do a investigation of each crash site, or did the Air Force just make a "educated guess"?
I'd have to look at it again. I believe the study used aircraft that were recovered (i.e. ones that went down over land and could be found). There was a certain percentage of "unknown" losses too where they couldn't determine the cause of loss.
The one thing I really notice about this study is that it agrees very strongly with most pilots stories of combat I've read ... lots of engine hits, fire, and pilot hits.
-
From Aircraft Vulnerability in World War II
A. H. Peterson
Rand Corporation, 1950
Document number # RM-402
Page 53
Aircraft lost to hit ratio for hits on components (F4U, F6F, SB2C, TBM,
Note: all radial-engined)
From Japanese Aircraft Fire – Sept 44 –August 45
Hit location # hit #lost Loss %
Propellor 9 0 0
Powerplant 37 23 62.2
Structure 215 23 10.7
Pilot/flight controls 97 74 76.3
Surface Controls 27 0 0
Oil System 27 23 85.3
Fuel System 30 24 80.0
Hydraulic System 35 21 60.0
Electrical System 6 0 0
Other 18 5 27.8
Total 501 193 38.5
If I arrange the causes of losses in weighted order:
Hit location #lost % cause of total losses
Pilot/flight controls 74 43.0
Fuel System 24 14.0
Powerplant 23 13.4
Oil System 23 13.4
Structure 23 13.4
Other 5 2.9
Toad:
G1-Ballistic coefficients for German 13mm to 20mm rounds are in the range of .20 to .48. The 90g 20mm Mine shell (for example)has a g1-BC of .263.
G1-BCs for BMG .50 are in the range of .65 to .72.
round mass mv g1-bc
20mm Mine 90g 805m/s .263
20mm HE/I 115g 705m/s .48
13mm HE/I 34g 750 m/s .32
13mm AP-T 38.5g 710 m/s .36
US BMG .50 AP/I 42.9g 938 m/s .693
I'm sure you have already seen my comparison of .50 and 151 trajectories but... here it is anyway:
http://home.earthlink.net/~jayboyer/ballistics.htm
Niklas:
You're already argued with Pyro that Allied rounds don't decelerate properly. Admittedly you seem to have largely ignored what he said but perhaps you should look at the thread again.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=28283&referrerid=1953
Hooligan
-
Well Toad, looks like he beat to it, the rest of the data you mentioned is readly available on a ton of web sights in in a number off book's.
I am not entirely shure what the sight height has to do with anything being mentioned hear, but it could easly be arived at by doing some simple math, and what were realy talking about hear is effect on impact (or at least I am).
My main point is that the lower velocity HEI type rounds are suffering in their effect in the game since the damage effect seams to be tied to closely to the Velocity on impact, in other words the destrucive force (or damage on impact) is not being properly modeled for these rounds.
Now the other issues are not ones I am presently pursuing althought they do relate in a way to the above case.
The type 99 rounds should have the same effect on impact and in AH their is a big differance in this effect, all signs point to the engery on impact being the cheif culpert in this undermodeling, since the HEI rounds they fire are the same and since they should generate the same effect(or near to it) we seam to have a problem.
A quote from Tonys sight, taken from above:
""if the projectile is primarily relying on HE blast or incendiary effect, the velocity with which it strikes the target is almost immaterial. Provided that it hits with sufficient force to penetrate the skin and activate the fuze, the damage inflicted will remain constant. "
This effect is not I beleave represented in AH to any apricable degree which is why the Hispano and the 50cal are so effective in the game.
-
Brady, Hooli provided data for the Mg151 20mm Mine shell and the Mg151 20mm APHE shell. No data for the 13mm or 15 mm at all.
A "range" of ballistic coefficients is useless in the formula. You need THE BC of each projectile to get accurate trajectory.
Sight height deals with trajectory relative to line of sight. The bullet path with respect to the pilot's LOS, if you will.
I don't have any books that give 13mm or 15mm BC's. I've searched the web and not found them.
Give me hand here, OK? Take a few minutes and give me the BC's for those with the sources and I'll check them out. I'm sure from what you've posted that you have all this stuff.
Your main point is that you think the chemical energy of the HEI shells is not being fully modeled? Is this for all HEI, or just LW? You think the Hispano is incorrectly or correctly modeled?
OK. What do you base this theory upon?
Specifically, on the Type 99 rounds your saying they should have the "same effect on impact" as what? Are you talking about the different versions of Type 99 or in comparison to other HEI rounds?
-
Toad: I added some data for you in an edit.
Hooligan
-
Toad I beleave Holigan covered you their, but I never said didely about anything that had to with the balistics/trajectory of any of the weapons except in a very general since, I made no arguments aganst anything in AH except the relaive effectivenss of the Type 99's and I asumed that since these two guns the Type 99 MK I and MK II are so dislimer in their preformance on impact that their is quiet likely a conection to all other guns of a similar nature in AH.
In short that the Balistics/ trajectory of the weapons is not realy all that important hear ( nore was it realy a point i raised) since my main concern at present is the Type 99 isue, now if I am right on this issue then everything else would I asume warent futher looking into or it could just be a case specific problem in how one or both Type 99's are modeled.
Raed this Thread:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=787074#post787074
Now all of my TM series books are presently about an hour away in Storage unfortunatly, if you nead some of the data in them I could arange to make a trip to my storage to dig them out, howeaver Pyro should have the coppy I made of the Japanese voulms I sent him, I beleave he has the German one and I think I sent him my coppyes from the Italian one that covvered the Breda gun's used in AH, it was about 2 1/2 years ago though that I sent them to him so I cant be shure on the later.
-
Hooligan: I did not ignore this thread, actually this is the 20mm chart i was talking about.
If you have it too (probably) you can see that the 20mm chart is for AP (!!!), which is not reprenstative for a HE shell. Unfortunatly Pyro never gave me a debug output of the 20mm HS shell at ~1000yards. And we DO have HE shells here imo.
Yes, the AH 20mm HS is more or less flying like this velocity chart imo, and this is wrong.
The HE shell starts at higher muzzle velocity and has naturally more drag, will decelerate faster at each distance point.
The HE shell has less mass, assuming same shape it will decelerate faster in ratio of the masses compared to the AP at each veloctiy (Is 2570grains to 2030grains the correct ratio? If so, the HE shell will decelarate at equal speed already more than 25% faster than the AP shell, ONLY due to the mass difference!!).
The HE shell has a flat nose which produces much more drag compared to the rather sharp nose of the AP, especailly at supersonic speeds. On the other hand i don´t know exact drag values, but i think minimum 20-25% more drag.
So alone due to mass and shape the HE shell will decelerate ~40-50% faster at a given veloctity compared to the AP!!! MINIMUM!!!
And this does not happen in AH, here the shell flies like a AP shell with the nice advantage of a higher muzzle veloctiy, because THIS is definitly modelled.....
Meanwhile i run a quick test. The mean velocity from 650y to 850y is probably still 70% of the mean velocity from 50-350y, comparing tracers.
niklas
-
Thanks Hooli!
I'll run some trajectories, probably later in the week. While trajectory doesn't deal with the chemical energy aspect, it does wonders (for those who understand ballistics) with respect to explaining range and hit probabilities. I wonder if the guys who grew up reading Jack O'Connor are the ones having trouble? ;)
BTW, anyone have the BC's for the common Japanese projectiles, MG and Cannon?
Brady, I read the thread. You're concerned with the apparent difference in "leathality" between the early and later Type 99 since the chemical energy should be the same although admittedly the ballistic energy is different.
I think we can assume that Pyro knows/realizes/has the data on the differences and similarities in the two projectiles, right?
So now there's three possibilities:
1) There's an error in the modeling and the two projectiles should do very close to the same damage.
2) There's no error in the modeling and Pyro has some valid reason for making the "leathality" different.
3) Your test in the SEA was flawed for some unknown reason and you did not get accurate results.
Now, I have no idea which of these might be the "right" one or if these three are the only ones.
However, I do have a suggestion for you. Try a post directed at Pyro and lay out the case in an objective manner with supporting statements like Tony's.
Skip the clever little insinuations that HTC is deliberately biased in their modeling like this one:
Originally posted by brady
I think Urchin is being to cleaver again:) " The Allied High" nick name, for ah was after all earned:)
Because if I read that in a post directed to me or about my work, I'd be thinking "screw you chum... I'm not even going to deal with a person as clearly biased as you are".
Then, if you don't get an answer in a reasonable amount of time, pick up the phone. I think Pyro will address your concerns IF you present them in a non-confrontational way.
Good luck. I hope to read the explanation here soon.
-
And we DO have HE shells here imo.
As far as I understand: HTC does not model mixes of shells in the belt, nor do they do in-depth modelling of HE or AP effects when the shell hits... All rounds are treated as hybrids and they share some of the benefits and deficiencies of both the HE and AP rounds.
As far as the ballistics of a particular gun, maybe HTC picks one shell type (AP or HE) and bases ballistics off all guns on the same type. Maybe they average the mass and BC of the AP and HE rounds and use that.
However my bet is that whatever they do for the Hispano, they do exactly the same thing for the Mg151 (and every other damn gun). In general ballistics for HE shells are better out to 300-500 yards because of their higher initial velocity. At longer ranges AP rounds will perform better. If HTC is modelling HE round ballistics for everything, then this makes the guns a bit better at medium and short ranges. If HTC is modelling AP ballistics for everything then all the guns will be a bit better at long and extremely long range.
HTC could purposely be modelling two weapons with wildy different assumptions so as to intentionally provide a weapon with an unrealistic advantage. I don't think this is happening, although you clearly do.
No matter what uniform modelling criteria HTC is using, the end result is going to be the same: i.e. Hispano rounds of all types have both a much higher initial velocity and much superior BC to equivalent German 20mm rounds. Hispano trajectories will be much flatter and quicker. Get over it.
Hooligan
-
About ballistics and aiming, they are also related to gun shaking the wings. The gun disposition on wing roots (the stronger and less flexible part of the wings) for 190/Ta or central for 109 should be a clear advantage over the outer wing hispano mounting on Spits, Typhs and HogsC. Recoil effect should also be much more noticeable for hispanos. This effect is almost unnoticeable on AH hispano armed planes, so, the aiming is extremely easy even with prolonged burts.
-
Use the .target command to look at the dispersion of the gun packages. Guns which are mounted far out on the wings clearly show worse dispersion than centered mounted guns or guns that are mounted close in. All of this stuff has been beaten to death before on the BBS. If you are a crappy shot, maybe you should avoid gun packages with poor ballistics.
Hooligan
-
Originally posted by Hooligan
Guns which are mounted far out on the wings clearly show worse dispersion
Really? Opposite effect in my test with Spit hispanos compared to 190A8 2x20mm, conv set at 300 yards and target at 300 yards. Have u really done that test?
-
Originally posted by brady
The type 99 rounds should have the same effect on impact and in AH their is a big differance in this effect, all signs point to the engery on impact being the cheif culpert in this undermodeling, since the HEI rounds they fire are the same and since they should generate the same effect(or near to it) we seam to have a problem.
A quote from Tonys sight, taken from above:
""if the projectile is primarily relying on HE blast or incendiary effect, the velocity with which it strikes the target is almost immaterial. Provided that it hits with sufficient force to penetrate the skin and activate the fuze, the damage inflicted will remain constant. "
Well, only the M-Geschoss relied heavily on blast effect (and possibly the light IJA 20mm Ho-5 HEIs), the more strongly constructed rounds like the Hispano and Type 99 relied more on kinetic damage via shell fragments, plus starting fires. It also depends on the fuzing - a delay-action fuze enables a heavy HE to inflict kinetic damage on the way in.
I think that the 99-2 should inflict more damage than a 99-1, but not much more.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
From the other thread:
I said:
"So a 50% diferance in the Destructive effect of the round as evidanced from my testing would not be correct in terms of preformance modeling. If we are to sight your figures from above they should be far closer to one another, somthing on the order of 80% as effective for the Type 99 MK I, compared to the Type 99MK II. "
Tony Said:
"I agree with you that there should not be a huge difference in destructive effect between the two. Probably the major advantage of the higher velocity of the 99-2 was that it improved the hit probability. "
Again TY Tony for all the help you give many of us in better understanding this very interesting subject.
-
Originally posted by brady
the rest of the data you mentioned is readly available on a ton of web sights in in a number off book's.
Well Brady, I did another web search and I still can't find the BC's for the common Japanese aircraft rounds. I know you have lots of that data, can you point me to a source for the MG's and Cannon rounds? Just BC, projectile weight and muzzle velocity will do for now. Thanks in advance.
-
Some of the following scans and Data come form this source:
(http://www2.freepichosting.com/Images/66940/0.jpg)
Look at Tony sight for the MV questions and the Weight's:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm
Bellow are some more scans that show a bit more detail on some of the prodjectiles, if somthing is missing please let me know and I can scan it for you or look it up. My TM series does not have the BC's listed and I thought it did, I will look around and try and find a source for them, many of the Japanese rounds are very similar to know types howeaver and the BC's for them might be usefull enough to come close, but I will look and see what I can find.
-
I do appreciate it.
While I know you've told me that BC's for most of the major combatant's aircraft gun projectiles are readily available on the web, I certainly haven't had much luck in finding them.
Muzzle velocity is pretty common. Projectiles (exact) weights are pretty uncommon and BC's are rare at best.
And anyone wanting to talk hit probability has to consider trajectory, so this kind of data is important, don't you think?
Do you think you ought to just call Pyro and ask him about the two Type 99 rounds? Might be the fastest way to get the explanation.
-
Originally posted by Tony Williams
Qoute from 'Flying Guns: WW2':
"German information from a different source document indicated that HS 404 HET shells slowed from 880 to 675 m/s at 300 m and about 500 m/s at 600 m, reductions of 23 % and 43 % respectively."
In contrast, the 20 mm HE-T (117g) from an MG 151 was doing around 540 and 410 m/s respectively at the same distances, while the 92g M-Geschoss was doing 490 and 310 m/s.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
Thank Tony, I was just looking for such data for the Hispano round velocity at 300m. Now I can make my firepower comparison with more exact data!
BTW, do you happen to have similiar data for all types of shells the Hispanos used?
-
Ho-103
(http://www2.freepichosting.com/Images/66948/0.jpg)
(http://www2.freepichosting.com/Images/66949/0.jpg)
-
Type 2:
(http://www2.freepichosting.com/Images/66951/0.jpg)
(http://www2.freepichosting.com/Images/66953/0.jpg)
-
"While I know you've told me that BC's for most of the major combatant's aircraft gun projectiles are readily available on the web, I certainly haven't had much luck in finding them. "
Ya, I recall seing them but I am having a problem finding them myself, I will look around some more tomarow AM when I have more time.
"Muzzle velocity is pretty common. Projectiles (exact) weights are pretty uncommon and BC's are rare at best. "
Ya MV's and rof is easy to come by, exact weights are hard to find, thats why I am posting some of the more common Japanese rounds hear from the above source, if their is somthing specific you nead let me know and I will scan it.
"And anyone wanting to talk hit probability has to consider trajectory, so this kind of data is important, don't you think? "
O I do.
"Do you think you ought to just call Pyro and ask him about the two Type 99 rounds? Might be the fastest way to get the explanation."
I was going to do it toady since I was going to ask Skuzzy some CT questions but I got side tracked, and wanted to go the Museum anyway:) I should have time tomarow to call though.
More scans coming....
-
Gota love that 7.7mm HEI:)
(http://www2.freepichosting.com/Images/66961/0.jpg)
-
Ho-5:
(http://www2.freepichosting.com/Images/66966/0.jpg)
-
Type 99:
(http://www2.freepichosting.com/Images/66971/0.jpg)
(http://www2.freepichosting.com/Images/66973/0.jpg)
-
I did find a great TM on the US ammo Balistics, it apears to be very indepth, and lists pentration for 50cal's (amongst other's) on all types of surfaces, I was going to coppy parts of it but I was short on time, I might go back though and look it over more closly.
-
Good stuff on the weights there.
-
Ya it's a realy cool series, prety much anything that went boom, burned or smoked, is covered in it Bomb's, ammo, Artillery and other sundery devices are covered as well.
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Thank Tony, I was just looking for such data for the Hispano round velocity at 300m. Now I can make my firepower comparison with more exact data!
BTW, do you happen to have similiar data for all types of shells the Hispanos used?
No, such data is hard to come by except for the German ammo. However, the HEI and SAPI used by the RAF had similar weights and profiles, so I would expect them to be ballistically virtually identical.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
From Aircraft Vulnerability in World War II
A. H. Peterson
Rand Corporation, 1950
Document number # RM-402
Page 53
Aircraft lost to hit ratio for hits on components (F4U, F6F, SB2C, TBM,
Note: all radial-engined)
From Japanese Aircraft Fire – Sept 44 –August 45
Hit location # hit #lost Loss %
Propellor 9 0 0
Powerplant 37 23 62.2
Structure 215 23 10.7
Pilot/flight controls 97 74 76.3
Surface Controls 27 0 0
Oil System 27 23 85.3
Fuel System 30 24 80.0
Hydraulic System 35 21 60.0
Electrical System 6 0 0
Other 18 5 27.8
Total 501 193 38.5
If I arrange the causes of losses in weighted order:
Hit location #lost % cause of total losses
Pilot/flight controls 74 43.0
Fuel System 24 14.0
Powerplant 23 13.4
Oil System 23 13.4
Structure 23 13.4
Other 5 2.9
This is the point gents.
In AH (you remember AH?) most kills by far are from wing failure or even more absurd your entire fusalage splitting in two peices. And then there is the complete loss of your tail section.
Everyone is so hung up on who had the biggest bullets but nobody cares that the relative damage was minimal unless the pilot or engine was knocked out.
But hey I like looking at pictures of bullets too.
Here is one of my favorites, the 37MM smart shell developed by Colonel Sanders of the Confederate Air force. Obviously it has been undermodeled because there is no way an aircraft could survive a strike from an object that heavy.
(http://www.americanaeroservices.com/images/BomberBill/bird%20strike.jpg)
-
Originally posted by john9001
<>
i can't even belive you posted that , 50 cal "bouncing off' thin alum sheet metal, it must have been the super secret german extra hardened alum sheet metal armor designed by tank kurt.
ya , das ist da ticket.
I suggest you read
COMBAT CREW
by John Comer
ISBN 0-7515-0796-2
then when you call this B17 topgunner/Engineer veteran a liar you will be assured in your own mind that you know better than someone who was there wont you :)
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Geez,
1. Please don't turn this into a Luftwaffa is undermodeled thread. That is not what this is and there is enough of that going right now. See other thread for that.
2. This is not a whine about Hizooka's. I rarely get killed by them, in fact the majority of cannon armed dweebs are not hispano, they are Japanese in the NIK2 or Russian in the La-7. The ones that bother me the most are in the NIK2 much more than the C-Hog.
The Fact is
Most pilots in wartime never fired unless they were right on top of their targets. 150meters or less.
Bullets of many calibers can and did "bounce off". Just because it doesn't seem feasable doesn't mean it can't happen. I have read reports from pilots on all fronts reporting this. Are they all full of Sh*t? Or do we think we know to much? A rock skipping off of water is a good analogy.
And another thing
I don't care if someone has a mine shell or a howizter shell. You may know the exact force of the explosion but the damage done to the target is 100% subjective. Frankly I find the damage model in the TA more realistic, more challenging and more enjoyable. But it is my opinion and I can back it up with as much annecdotal evidence as anybody.
In WW2 there were many reports of pilots landing on carriers with up to 40 cannon holes in them. This is not only unlikely it is impossible in AH for this to happen. In AH one hit from an Osty at any range is death. IRL many fighters absorded hits from high caliber AA and returned home. I have never survived a hit from an osty.
IMHO the damage model needs a major overhaul in AH.
Everything from .30cal buff guns severing wings at 500 yards to A6M5's that take more damage than any American Navy plane.
Tone the hits down and the game becomes more ACM intensive and less HO and front quarter reliant.
couldnt agree more with what you are saying.(well except zeros being tougher than navy planes in AH lol) in fact i thought id QUOTE this in order that no one misses it :)
and to repeat: "Tone the hits down and the game becomes more ACM intensive and less HO and front quarter reliant. "
-
Yep, tone the hits down for medium range (> 350 yards, even less), and a LOT down for long range (> 500 yards). At least this way our combat will be much closer to WW2 standars. And add to that a BIG improvement in damage/armour model.
-
Why, shuckins, boys.. why don't you just ask for something that the other earlier games did to some degree?
Just artificially make the bullets disappear at anything beyond 100 yards.
-
Toad, our actual combat is a fantasy compared to WW2. What to do to solve that? I prefer a WW2 type combat than our actual sidewinder range kills.
-
HTC has a choice:
Artificially reduce the range of the guns to suit the personal preferences of folks that really have no idea.
Or, model the guns as ballistically close as you are able, track the round and see what they hit in the arena universe.
You want "nerfed" guns.
WB used to have that.. maybe they still do.
Life is full of options.
-
Everyone is so hung up on who had the biggest bullets but nobody cares that the relative damage was minimal unless the pilot or engine was knocked out.
F4UDOA, everybody would agree to that.
It's just that we do the reasoning; "rarely should there be any damage at all in the first place" when planes are at certain distances - they can't hit the enemy plane with enough accuracy to ensure its destruction.
If HTC has modelled the difference in relative powers between various gun shells of AH, into somehing that even remotely resembles any real life figures - then, inevitably the problem must be found within the other aspects which do not resemble real life figures at all - and those are damage modelling, and (particularly) long range shots.
The factual data provided on reasons behind plane losses, can be looked in this point of view:
When an attacking plane approaches its target within a very close range to fire(100m or so..), the first immediate point of targetting an average pilot will set his eyes upon, will be the fuselage area.
It is the largest part of the plane visible to the attacker, and also the easiest place to target.
It is very likely the average pilot will aim for the fuselage, and many of his shots will land there inside such close firing range, rather than other areas.
That will lead to a pilot death or engine damage, if it penetrates the pilot protection or if there was deflection enough for shots to land at the frontal part of the fuselage from behind.
If not, it will most likely puncture fuel tanks and lead to fire.
I believe that accounts for the high rate of plane losses due to pilot deaths/fires(fuel area hit)/loss of power(engine hit, with slight deflection), rather than loss of wing or elevators.
...
However, when the effective firing range becomes longer than real life, the probability of structural failure on the wing/elevator/stab parts become increasingly larger - since admitabbly the fuselage area is more durable than the wings.
With a burst of guns in AH firing distances, connecting at 400~500 yards, the dispersion of the cannons will land hits that are spread relatively wide across the rear surface of the target plane(trailing edge of wings, elevators, V-stab...) - in which case the weaker areas will fall off first(in current style of "sufficient number of hits = part falls off" DM), before prolonged fire damages pilot/engine/fuel compartments, residing inside the fuselage.
Then, as I have wondered, it becomes a matter of how those shots land like that in the first place, in such ranges. There are many reasons behind this, but that is discussed in other threads. The more important fact to poin out right now, is if AH firing ranges would come down to realistic levels, then the loss of planes would start to match the real data collected.
Add a better DM to that, and it is going to be almost exactly like what you have read.
I know some people don't like these comparisons, but IL2/FB does exactly what I have said - effective firing range against a straight, level plane is 300~400m max(lucky pot shots with MK103 or so, sometimes kill out to 700m, but that's very very very rare).
Against maneuvering planes, you need to go within 200m. With the DM as they have, damage is gradual and not instant - a few shots to the wing do not break it down.
Since the shooting range is so close, most of the shots landed are concentrated at the fuselage area rather than wings. Hits on the wings usually lead to degradation in balance/performance, which in turn, leads to the final coup-de-grace where the target cannot maneuver well, and the attacker approaches and deals the death blow to the fuselage areas, starting a fire, or killing the engine. Hits on the wings itself, does not kill planes by that alone, in IL2/FB, since spread out hits at long ranges, which some rounds connect to the wing, are uncommon in the first place, and ineffective even if it happens so.
Thus, the largest reason for death in IL2/FB, is usually fire, or engine failure due to damage.
-
HTC has a choice:
Artificially reduce the range of the guns to suit the personal preferences of folks that really have no idea.
Or, model the guns as ballistically close as you are able, track the round and see what they hit in the arena universe.
You want "nerfed" guns.
No, Toad. There are many more choices, than that. One being, ..
*Model the guns as ballistically close as you are able
and with that,
*Also model as much of other subtle factors which inhibit the probability of hits in long ranges - factors which work against the oure, theoretical ballistics.
- get rid of ammo counters for planes not having them
- put in realistic hit sprites, or at least make them diminish in size
- limit maximum zoom-in
- introduce other inhibiting factors such as turbulence or flutter effect
- introduce new DM
- maybe new icons..
and etc etc.
After all, if one game models its guns ballistically close as possible and track the rounds, and still manage a more realistic shooting environment, then so can AH.
If the some pilots are such crack-shots, so much better than WW2 pilots as they claim to be, then the above factors won't bother them anyway. What have they got to lose?
They'd keep ammo count into consideration, will have a feel on whether they are hitting the target or not at long ranges, won't use zoom feature anyway, will be accurate enough to kill stuff no matter how the DM changes, and will be able to judge relative distance and speed without the need of the 'count-down' icons, right?
...
I mean, what do the people of AH lose by not being able to hit 400~600 yard shots regularly?
-
Using Hooli's numbers for these trajectories.
The gun is "zeroed" at 400 yards.
13mm AP-T 38.5g 710 m/s .36
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_116_1060404786.jpg)
US BMG .50 AP/I 42.9g 938 m/s .693
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_116_1060404881.jpg)
Things to look for:
Note the difference in energy at 400 yards and again at 800 yards. the .60 has 3X the energy at 400 and 4X the energy at 800.
Not the time of flight at these yardages. At ~300 mph, the target is moving 440 feet per second. That extra half second the 13mm takes to get there allows the target to move another ~70 yards, requiring that much more lead.
Note the drop, especially at 800 yards. Out to 500 yards, the .50 BMG is in a line of sight window between 8 inches high to 12 inches low, in other words always within plus or minus a foot line of sight. The 13mm ranges from about a foot high to two feet low.
Any question now on why the .50's are easier to hit with or do much more damage?
If you have an good data on BC's, bullet weights and muzzle velocity, we can quickly run those as well for other calibers/rounds.
-
I dunno why you always turn "gunnery" into just a ballistics discussion.
Its much more. I am sure theres a "lethality" at range calculation that HT uses and I am sure its fine (except for mgff and the type 99 mk 1). But theres no question that "effective range"; the range at which the average ah'er can shoot and kill; is much further then in rl.
As has been stated previously theres a number of reasons.
1. Tracers. I dont even use a gunsite anymore it just clouds up my vision. You can see exactly where you bullets are going and adjust.
2. One size fits all hit sprites. You can tell at range if you hit.
3. Range counters - for the most part this eliminates the need need to use a gunsite because you dont have to center up your prey to get accurate range.
4. ammo counters - you know exactly how much you can spray.
5. every round that hits causes equal damage. There no randomization.
6. hybrid rounds - take the hisso the brits didnt use an ap round.
If you are just going to talk about "numbers" then the only 2 choices are
keep umm real no matter how unreal the results
nerf umm to get more like "real life"
But if you include everything you can see that there are other areas that could be adjusted to get results closer to rl.
I am not an advocate of no icons but I play a lot of il2 in the online wars where no icons are the norm. Even though its "unrealistically" difficult to track and spot nme it forces you to get in close to land decent lethal hits. Even though there are problems with the DM you actually need to aim at points on the aircraft you are trying to kill. Just getting hits anywhere most of the time wont get you a kill.
I think that maybe if icons where ever redone to fade in at range, hit sprites were redone, tracers set at intervals instead of a continous stream and the dm tweaked to include some randomization (ie some hits just make holes others do more damage etc.) then you would see a different type of "result".
-
Because the bottom line IS ballistics.
Since day one HTC has said they model each bullet and track it's trajetory in the universe, taking into account whether or not it hits any other object along that path.
If one accepts that as true, then all the wailing, whining and gnashing of teeth is pointless. Ballistics is a pretty simple science, that is, it's pretty simple to predict a bullet's path.
So clearly "bullets can't hit at 500 yards" is simply BS. Of course they can. At 500 yards, that .50 zeroed at 400 will only hit one foot below line of sight aimpoint, it will have 500 foot pounds of energy and only take about half a second to get there after leaving the barrel.
OF COURSE it can hit something at 500.
The opposite side of this argument is should we, the virtual pilots, be able to aim that well. You have your laundry list of things to discuss. Fine. Want to change/remove some of that? Something to consider. A lot of those things fall under the category of "gameplay"; if all sides have all aircraft there has to be some sort of IFF. The form is debatable but the requirement is not.
But there can be NO DOUBT WHATSOVER that the bullet will do the job. And that's what HTC's ballistics model does model; the bullet is doing it's job as close to RL as they can make it. It's not a "gameplay" consideration. To argue for "nerfing" the guns range or damage is ludicrous, especially when made by folks that are concerned about whether the top speed of an aircraft is off by 1% at the top end.
-
Oh and besides, plotting trajectories tends to nullify the claims that some rounds are unfairly reduced in range due to some secret handshake conspiracy that no one can prove but everyone knows is there.
Ballistics show that the range of some rounds just sucks compared to others. Like noting that the .50 has about 1/3 of the drop of the 13mm at 1000 yards.
And that the energy of some rounds just sucks compared to others. Like noting that the .50 has more energy at 2000 yards than the 13mm does at 700 yards.
-
Nope you are wrong. The discussion isnt bullets cant hit and hurt you outside d600. Where has anyone said that?
Its about effective range that the average player gets kills.
Your arguement does nothing to account for the simple dm or the fact that any hit causes equal damage. This alone would change the current "gunnery".
Its more then ballistics as kweassa and I have said.
As kweassa pointed out in his comparison to il2. Long range shoots are possible and if they hit vital points can cause damage or death but the likelyhood of that is small, unlike ah. In IL2 50s and hissos (they are hizookas there as well) are very deadly in the same respect they are here. But there are a number of factors unaccounted for in the ah model that are present in il2 that better recreate what one reads about in regards to ww2 a2a combat.
Il2 has flaws and bugs and it aint all gravy. Your tables and numbers are great if I were firing from a bench at a fixed target. You dont account for oscillations from longer burst, (dispersion in ah is standard) turbulence, etc.
Not all hits would cause damage or even equal damage. Some hits would make nice holes, other depending on angle of impact may skip off, others may find the pilot or the fuel tank or cut control cables. Theres no or very little radomization.
Then again the ability to use a constant stream of incredibly visible tracers to walkon on to target, instant range info, and one size fits all hit sprites are more a factor in the long range gunnery in ah then the charts you posted.
Oh and besides, plotting trajectories tends to nullify the claims that some rounds are unfairly reduced in range due to some secret handshake conspiracy that no one can prove but everyone knows is there.
Secret handshake? I dunno what you are going on about here but pm brady and ask him about his talk with pyro in regards to the type 99 mk 1 and type 99 mk 2 and why theres a huge difference in lethality between the 2. And where do you see where anyone said certain rounds are reduced in range as part of a conspiracy?
-
Agreed.
Ballistics is science, probably something a layman like me never can fully understand. But I am pretty damned convinced that ballistics, is but only ONE of many sciences which must come into this picture, which tries to recreate certain events of the past - each EQUALLY as important as the science of ballistics.
Besides, history, and prolonged research of it, pretty much seem to support the fact that real life gunnery results hardly meet the outcome of a prediction via theoretical ballistics, no?
So then, where does this disparity come from?
Is it OK to ignore that disparity, because AH is only a game? In that case, when 'realism' loses its place as a standard and 'it's only a game' slogan comes into action - then, there's also nothing wrong with nerfing bullets to create a better historic image in gunnery. It makes a better game, that way.
But of course, I don't want that.
I recognize what the ballistics suggest. Then, I'd also expect that factors aside ballistics, also gets equal recognition.
-
Hi everyone,
I'd like to point out that two effects haven't been given enough consideration in this thread:
1) With regard to the original machine guns vs. cannon question, it's important to remember that at least the German cannon ammunition was designed to destroy the structure of the aircraft so that they didn't have to rely on hit on critical components. I'm sure that other 20 mm cannon firing standard explosive shells shared this capability to a certain degree.
2) With regard to long range ballistics, it's imperative not to forget about dispersion.
Dispersion of wing-mounted 12.7 mm machine guns may be 6 mil, which means that at 800 m the projectiles impact in a 4.8 m circle - that's 18.1 m^2, while a fighter-sized target may offer around 3 m^2 target area. In other words, even with perfect aim, only 1 in 6 projectiles is going to hit.
Dispersion of a fuselage-mounted 13 mm machine guns will probably be less than 2 mil. That's an 1.6 m diameter circle, or a 2 m^2 area. That means that with perfect aim, the vast majority of the projectiles is going to hit.
(Of course, wing-mounting versus fuselage mounting doesn't depend on the weapon type. The P-38 for example can be expected to be outstanding in long range firepower.)
Now to get an impression of the effectiveness of machine guns at long range under realistic conditions, we can draw on German studies. According to their figures, the 15 mm MG151 per projectile had 27% of the effectiveness of the MG151/20, which in turn was reckoned to be able to reliably destroy a fighter with 6 random hits. The 12.7 mm Browning projectiles had 68% of the MG151's muzzle energy, which I'll take as indication of their relative effectiveness. As result, I'll consider 33 random hits by 12.7 mm ammunition enough to destroy a fighter aircraft. At 800 m, that would require about 201 rounds to be fired, which a battery of 6 Brownings could manage in about 2.9 s.
For comparison, how about a MG151/20 attack at 800 m? German sources give a 1.9 mil dispersion for this gun, so a 50% hit chance is a rather conservative estimate. That means with perfect aim, 12 rounds would have to be fired from centre-line mounted MG151/20 cannon. That would take a Fw 190 with its wing-root cannon just 0.5 s.
Of course, these calculations rely on the unrealistic assumption of perfect aim. To illustrate the effect of this factor: The Luftwaffe expected that a typical pilot under combat conditions firing a MG151/20 battery at a heavy bomber at 1000 m would have a hit ratio of 3%. However, the ballistic capabilities of the weapon hardly influenced the hit probability: The 50 mm MK214 which probably featured a much better trajectory than any other WW2 air combat weapon still gave the average Luftwaffe pilot no better than 4.2% hit chance under the same conditions.
On the other end of the scale, American gun sight testing after WW2, using a P-38, showed that it was possible for the (admittedly highly skilled) test pilot to make entire tracking runs with the nose within one mil of the ideal aiming point. Such a pilot might have been able to get just the results I've described under "perfect aim" above.
Whether Aces High requires the same degree to skill to achieve "perfect aim" as flying a real fighter does, I can't tell. However, I think this is more a matter of the flight modelling than of the ballistical modelling because the all-decisive question is "How well can you point the guns?"
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Toad,
I can't speak for everyone but I would never want an unrealistic ballistics model. Ballistics is simplistic to calculate if you have the right data and I wouldn't want to bend the rules for the sake of gameplay.
But what happens when the bullet hits? Is it really possible for several 20mill shells to snap an F6F in half? Were wing failures that common?
I had a thread a while back asking why it was possible for a .30cal tail gun on the Ju-88 to take the wing off my F4U at 500yards consistantly with 30 rounds or less. And I could duplicate this consistantly in the DA.
Even if I could be hit at that range should that type of damage really occur? Or is it a subjective arguement. Have you ever seen tail gunner footage where a 109 or 190 lost a wing from turret mounted MG? Isn't it possible that the structure of these aircraft are more durable than in AH? I think Hooligans figures from WW2 show that the results in AH are less than probable if not a bit arcadish.
Some WW2 annecdotes are repeated so often they become almost cliche. The ones that stick in my head are these.
1. Don't turn with a Zero.
2. Alt./Speed = life
3. Check your 6
4. Don't shoot until you are close.
Which one of these things does not apply in AH?
-
So we all agree that artificially screwing with the ballistic computations and projectile tracking is a bad thing?
Good, my point exactly. (BTW, as HT has pointed out, numerous times, dispersion increases your chance of a hit. Don't bother to argue with me, just call him. I'm sure he'll enjoy discussing that old chestnut one more time! Tracers? There have been many comments here on how well AH tracer depictions match WW2 gun cam films.)
Now, damage model. AH does not have detailed graphical damage modeling. We all know that. Some unknown amount of wing damage is represented by a piece of the wing missing in the graphical representation, yet the plane can still fly with a wing chunk missing.
AH does not appear to have a real detailed "damage map". This is harder to judged because it's not visual but we all know there's certain areas that do "better" damage than others, like shooting wingtips on bombers.
There are other anomalies, like F4U posted about the JU-88 guns, other bomber guns... bunches of stuff.
Clearly, these situations are less than optimal.
So, what to do? Well, haven't they said they're revising the DM for AH2? I'd say the thing to do right now is wait and see how it turns out.
-
Did Brady talk to Pyro about the difference in the leath between the Mk1 Mk2?
So what was the answer?
Or did Pyro swear him to secrecy?
Why didn't he just post it? Why the need for a private message. Obviously, he told you?
So, what the explanation?
-
Theres no secrecy. But I am not the one going around claiming secret handshakes and conspiracies. If brady posts or not thats up to him. All I can offer if hearsay which may or may not be 100% accurate as we were discussing the AH scenario "Operation Iceberg". It was only in passing that he mentioned the type 99 mk 2 (niki) and type 99 mk1. It touched on lethality range calculations. Say a 50 cal has a max of 1.2k at 600 yrds the round looses 50% of its lethality.
The mk 1 looses 50% of its lethality at 200 yrds. I dont know the exact wording or even the exact numbers but it appeared as if it would be looked at. As I said it was in passing.
So we all agree that artificially screwing with the ballistic computations and projectile tracking is a bad thing?
Good, my point exactly.
The point was never about simple ballistics. It would also appear that not everyone agrees with the above (mando, hazed etc..).
Read F4s first post again. Its about effect and reconciling what has been written about and seen in rl guncam footage with what happens in ah. You simply tried to redefine the topic to "prove a point" that wasnt even the "schwerepunkt" of the discussion.
F4 posted as much
HT,
I don't think or know weather the ballistics model has anything to do with the dramatic differance between MG and cannon hits.
The area where I go off the tracks is what happens when that shell hits.
For instance I know when you shoot at a building with Panzer fire it takes XX amount of hits to destroy it. My question or statement would be that it takes far few to many hits to destroy an Aircraft with a cannon in AH than I believe it would in real life.
I know you have mentioned the damage model will change graphically but will it change in damage effects from impact as well?
Thats the point. "Gunnery" isnt just ballistics. Read f4's last post and hohun's post and kweassa's post.
BTW, as HT has pointed out, numerous times, dispersion increases your chance of a hit.
An increased chance of single bullet strike doesnt mean an increased risk in death or severe damage. Theres always the lucky pk but theres a reason for convergence. If all it took was greater hit probrability then they would have made the guns fire in huge "fishing net" pattern to snag anything in front of the plane. Anyway I doudt that a well aimed gun has a lower hit probrability then blind spray and pray. I'll go to the range tomorrow and see. Just look at Hohuns post.
So, what to do?
Some discussions are just that, discussions. They dont really require anything. To guess what each poster wants and what their reason for posting is not something I care about.
It would have been easier for him to search the old posts on this. After all its the same 6 or 7 guys going back and forth.
-
Jeez, I'd expect him to post. After all the discussion about it, I'd think if he had the answer to the question he'd share.
The "shouldn't be able to" aspect of these discussions does challenge HTC's ballistic modeling. My comments focus on the fact that the rounds clearly are capable of hitting at the longer ranges. All bullets land somewhere and ballistic trajectory and collision computations are something computers can do pretty well.
Seems to me what you're primarily saying then is that the discussion is about perceived problems with the damage model.
You define "gunnery" to suit your view of the discussion.
What F4U is talking about is damage. The Type 99 discussion centers around leathality/damage.
The point about dispersion is that it does increase the probability of a hit. Now, the damage that is done by a single hit is another discusion.
And ballistic performance will affect the probability of a hit as well, especially over the longer ranges. If you're a shooter, you intuitively realize that the "flatter shooting the better", and "the more energy, the better".
-
That sucks still the same gunery. That was the one thing I was hoping to see change. I hate getting killed at 1.2 away. For the Bnz,ers its good though I guess. This gunnery we have now feels gamey to me. specially the 50s
-
And ballistic performance will affect the probability of a hit as well, especially over the longer ranges. If you're a shooter, you intuitively realize that the "flatter shooting the better", and "the more energy, the better".
I just dont see where this was questioned.
I just reread the thread because maybe I missed something. F4 said he wasnt talking ballistics, Brady said he wasnt talking ballistic etc...
Gunnery is more then just ballistics and its connected to everything else. Over at target Rabaul theres a long thread about the sloppy fm.
Hmm seems there site is down fer me.
I was gonna quote what one guys says in response to the sloppy fm making gunnery more realistic. Basically the planes oscillate about. The gun site makes small circles even when you hold it level.
WBs used 80% lethality in their arenas, buff tough etc...... All that sucked.
No one wants that for AH.
The tracers, the icons, the limited dm etc all have impacts on how one percieves "gunnery". They all have an impact on effective range.
As you noted the science of ballistics is probrably the easier part of the overall gunnery equation. I have no reason to doudt hts numbers.
-
I just woke up, yawn so now I am posting:
I was not going to sayanything since this is changing in AH2 and I dident want to stir more toejam up and Pyro was very nice in taking a chunk of his day to answer my questions on this topic, so I thought I would do them a favor and drop it and wait and see what comes in AH2.
The Type 99MK I is valued at 92% the lethality as the Typ 99 MK II, howeaver it is being unduely effected by the time of flight reduction in lethality that is associated with all AH Aircraft gun's. So even at D180 it is suffering a 30 to 40% reduection in lethality when their realy should be only around an 8% reduction in lethality.
Pyro argeas with Tony's statement:
"if the projectile is primarily relying on HE blast or incendiary effect, the velocity with which it strikes the target is almost immaterial. Provided that it hits with sufficient force to penetrate the skin and activate the fuze, the damage inflicted will remain constant. "
So presently in AH the above statement is not the reality in AH, weapons with chemical engery componts are hitting less hard than they should at range.
But this is being changed.
TY Toad for presing me on calling Pyro, I normaly only call about CT related things since I am hesitant to waste their time fielding questions like this, but it was a good call and very informative for me personaly and I sincerly appricate Him taking time to answer my question's.
-
Toad I think you are focusing your arguments and contention too narrowly only on simple mathematical ballastics calculations, especially in light of the fact that the very people you are supposeddly arguing against seem to agree with your basic conclusions about balistic. Basically I feel you are inexplicably ignoring other factors. F4UDOA did open the thread saying,
" I don't think or know weather the ballistics model has anything to do with the dramatic differance between MG and cannon hits.
The area where I go off the tracks is what happens when that shell hits."
So clearly the argument here is what happends after the shell impacts the aircraft. Also note that he is comaring the .50 cal to the Hispano, and we all know they are both well suited to long range hits, a nice flat trajectory, and a high muzzle velocity - they are easy to hit with and get sustained hits.
Since those factors are largely similar in both guns they become irrelevant in any comparsion between the .50 cal and Hispano. So once again the original poster was not asking for ballistic calculations - that much is clear.
Now can you add something to this discussion about how bullets act upon hitting a varied aircraft structure? Do we even know how the HTC DM works? I donno?
Bust basically I honestly feel your focus is too narrow on balistics calculations especially asfter so mamny people plainly stated their aghreement on that one issue.
:)
-
Just like to point out that i in no way want guns 'nerfed' as toad put it :)
I dont want to be associated with some answers ive seen in here concerning what people believe , ie it being impossible to hit over 500 yards. I do not believe this at all.
I want bullets to be calculated to infinity if it can be done, I dont like even the present model AH uses which toad incidently is 'timed' from when they leave the muzzle. Meaning that 50 cals, being faster, cover more distance and thus have greater range than any other gun. 30mm for instance are removed at 900 yards from the game engine whereas 50 cals travel out to around 1.4k before they are removed.This is why those 20mm Hispanoes are so good.They have greater range than all other 20mm and it doesnt matter how high you aim with your slower LW 20mms, your bullet will never exceed the time limit.You feel this is fair ? I dont.why dont we just calculate all bullets out to a certain distance rather than a time?
What i do feel is a little excessive, is the loss of parts from aircraft in AH. If you have tried other games that have a greater variety of damageable parts and holes in the wing dont necessarily lose your whole wingtip you'll probably feel the same. I have always felt if AH damage was toned down slightly we would get the same 'feel' as some of the other games i think are more realsitic in their modeling of hits, or we'd see a few fights lasting a little longer. IL2 FB if you ask me has a much better 'feel' to its damage and im not trying to be funny just honest.
-
Ballistics is not an issue, but hits at long range should not show the hit sprites.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Here is one of my favorites, the 37MM smart shell developed by Colonel Sanders of the Confederate Air force. Obviously it has been undermodeled because there is no way an aircraft could survive a strike from an object that heavy.
It's al about where you hit it, it could easily just go trough the plane without causing any serious damage.
when hitting a plane with 37mm in ah it always explodes :eek:
-
Quotes from this topic:
Brady: Ya it's crazy being able to nail planes at 1200 with 50cal's and Hispanos,
Kweassa: I am almost certain, that once such difficulties in long range shooting is represented in AH, the whinings about guns, will dissipate in its totality
Kweassa: But people do start complaining in disbelief when they get hit like that out at 500~600 yards
NIklas: I´m still convinced that Hispona shells are overmoddeld for long range shots, and Mg-151 rounds probably undermodelled. But as long as i don´t know the exact velocity in AH of each shell at 100 and for example 1000 yards i can´t make an exact proof.
Mia389: I hate getting killed at 1.2 away. For the Bnz,ers its good though I guess. This gunnery we have now feels gamey to me.
*****
Those all sound pretty ballistic/trajectory related to me.
-
Originally posted by Batz
I
I was gonna quote what one guys says in response to the sloppy fm making gunnery more realistic. Basically the planes oscillate about. The gun site makes small circles even when you hold it level.
Is this supposed to be a good thing?
I've flown an awful lot of aircraft. I've flown quite a few WW2 aircraft. I even recently got a ride in the jump seat of a Mustang (no controls) where we hassled at T-6.
In not one, NONE, of these instances did I feel the aircraft was "sloppy" nor did the plane "oscillate about". None of them had any sort of "wandering nose" effect when flying straight and level. Well, at least not unless at or near stall speed.
To the contrary, the Mustang felt as crisp and and as sharp as a surgeon's scalpel when working over the T-6.
There are so many misconceptions out there that are believed so fervently.
-
Originally posted by brady
TY Toad for presing me on calling Pyro, I normaly only call about CT related things since I am hesitant to waste their time fielding questions like this, but it was a good call and very informative for me personaly and I sincerly appricate Him taking time to answer my question's.
Well, it has always seemed to me that it's good to bring questions and issues before the community because there's a pretty large knowledge base here. Usually everybody learns something. Lots of time the questions or issues can be answered or resolved.
OTOH, I think it's a bad thing to whack dead horses repeatedly simply because no definitive or acceptable solution has been offered. It's bad for the game overall and it's bad for the player(s) that have those concerns. It breed unhappiness.
I don't always expect HT or Pyro to jump in a thread and explain (for a lot of legitimate reasons... like keeping their code/plans to themselves) to the full satisfaction of all participants.
So, when an unresolved issue keeps coming up with no "official" answer and the posts about it keep getting more and more bitter and/or acrimonius, I think it's just better to "call the source" and ask in a polite manner. If they're too busy, they'll tell you.
If they're not, they will usually explain their position. I haven't talked with many folks that actually called HTC and chatted that didn't come away feeling better about the game and the direction it's going to take.
Glad you called him, glad it's getting looked at.
-
BTW Batz... suppose that you could set up the CT with No Tracer as a mandatory setting, turn off all hit sprites, remove the ammo counters, turn off the icons and restrict on side to .50 armed aircraft only (no hybrid rounds).
Now, suppose somebody that could really shoot came in behind you and hosed you with .50's and killed ya dead. Hits sounding like a hail storm on a tin trash can. Hundreds of rounds.
And say upon reviewing the film, you found the guy was 1K back at the time.
What would be your opinion then?
(I must toss in that I think the ammo counter thing is kind of a red herring given the situation in the game. Running out of ammo just isn't that big a deal.
I think most of us routinely stay in the fight until the guns go dry; at least I do. Would I do any different without counters? Nope.
I'd never worry about running out on the first engagement. Wouldn't worry about the second either. Depending upon a plane's ammo load, I'd be thinking I need to get good shots on the third one. The fourth one I'd be thinking "I'll probably run out and have to bug out".
So, what's the diff for a guy like me?)
-
" Brady: Ya it's crazy being able to nail planes at 1200 with 50cal's and Hispanos, "
I still think it is Crazy to be able to do this consistantly and with the ashurance that I can kill at that range with them, but I also think their are a number of factors contrabuting to the ease with which this occures in AH, I dont realy as I mentioned elsewhear have any real big isue with the Balisitcs model per say though. Also were all beating a dead horse hear in more of a way then we ushaly are on this tierd old subject since things are going to change. I sugest we ajurn unitll after AH2 comes out and we have had time to digest all the new stuff.
-
Sometime lets go to the DA and you can take a .50's or Hispano plane and kill me consistently at 1.2. I'd like a film of that for my personal collection.
:D
I still remember HT or Pyro asking for a film of a kill at 1.2. I think they eventually got... one. And there was some deal with that, like possibly the plane had been previously damaged or something.
But, hey... let's give it a try sometime.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well, it has always seemed to me that it's good to bring questions and issues before the community because there's a pretty large knowledge base here. Usually everybody learns something. Lots of time the questions or issues can be answered or resolved.
OTOH, I think it's a bad thing to whack dead horses repeatedly simply because no definitive or acceptable solution has been offered. It's bad for the game overall and it's bad for the player(s) that have those concerns. It breed unhappiness.
I don't always expect HT or Pyro to jump in a thread and explain (for a lot of legitimate reasons... like keeping their code/plans to themselves) to the full satisfaction of all participants.
So, when an unresolved issue keeps coming up with no "official" answer and the posts about it keep getting more and more bitter and/or acrimonius, I think it's just better to "call the source" and ask in a polite manner. If they're too busy, they'll tell you.
If they're not, they will usually explain their position. I haven't talked with many folks that actually called HTC and chatted that didn't come away feeling better about the game and the direction it's going to take.
Glad you called him, glad it's getting looked at.
no its not a good thing who said that? I was using that to compare how some would address long range gunnery artificially.
BTW Batz... suppose that you could set up the CT with No Tracer as a mandatory setting, turn off all hit sprites, remove the ammo counters, turn off the icons and restrict on side to .50 armed aircraft only (no hybrid rounds).
So what? This aint my thread nor have I ever started 1 related to being killed at long range. I simply point out the obvious. You can dance around all ya want with your bc and irrelevant numbers but the longer range gunnery in AH is a fact.
As I said like in Il2 its still possible to get longer range hits and even longer range kills but the effective kill is is much closer. But I bet you get in a jug and try to spray me down at 800 and you wont even get close to a kill unlike ah.
So what was your point again?
In il2 you can fly and almost completely match pilot accounts. Like setting up an attack and just keeping enough energy to keep a steeper climb. In il2 they cant pull there nose straight up and get a d850 burst that blows your plane in half like you can in ah. The can pull get some hits but they stall. They may land a lucky hit or 2 but not one that cuts your tail off.
As F4u mentions the snapshot is king.
Theres no aiming at a point on an aircraft in ah just get them in front and hose away. Any hit causes equal damage. You dont even need a gunsite in ah. When I flew the g6 with 30mm I didnt use a gunsite or tracers and still had a kd of 5 to 1 in it.
And at 800 yrds no tracers you cant walk the the round on to me.
At 800 no d icons you cant really tell between 800 and 1k.
The ammo counter doesnt let you get hits or kills but you can watch and manage your spray. With ammo counters you know exactly how much you can spray and how much you have sprayed.
fyi - If what brady says is true then there would appear to be some rounds like the typre 99 mk 1 and mgff that suffer more so over range then others. As has been suspected. You calculations would not have shown that. They may not have been nerfed over a "secret hand shake" but theres still something to the claim. Just like your arguement during the 50s vrs p4s that turned out to be a huge hole in the p4. You brought up ballistics then too.
Maybe its just acute fanfoi 'ism or what I dunno but lotsa times where theres smoke theres fire.
-
<<>.
could someone translate that for me.?
never mind i do it myself........WAHHH i gotn killet but i kant killt nobuddy WAHHH.......LW RuLlZ
-
LOL!
And the obvious is that you can be killed at "long range"? That's the fact of the longer range gunnery in AH"?
Well, yah. Can ya kill someone at 300 yards with the 13mm? Will it do enough damage? Sure you can. The .50 BMG has essentially that same energy at 1200 yards. So I guess you can be killed at long range in AH. Although the fabled "killed at 1.2 by .50's" is probably far more rare than routine. Basically, though, if you get hit, it's the same as getting hit by 13mm at 300 yards. Enough energy to kill in the game. That's what those "irrelevant numbers" tell us.
Most of the rest of your post seems to deal with the damage model for the objects in the game. I think it's good we're supposedly getting a more specific damage model. Never said I thought this DM was the be-all, end-all. In any post, anywhere that I recall.
And obviously, if you like IL so much... why punish yourself here in AH? Best to be happy.
Ammo counters? Yeah, you wonder how the planes without them ever accomplished anything in RL, don't you? Ammo counters don't matter in AH, I suspect they never will. The next batch of ammo is just a mouse/click launch away. However, be assured, it wouldn't bother me one bit if HTC took them away. I suspect there's many like me.
And if you'll review the .50/panzer thread, I believe I said it's not the hitting that's in question, it's the damage. The guns will hit; no doubt about it. IIRC, there was commentary about "can't hit from that range" in there too. To date, no one has shown the ballistics to be off that I've seen. Now, assigning the appropriate damage? That's quite different and I've said that too.
It may be that some of the chemical energy rounds are improved. Good! If it's right, it's right. I have no problem with that, never did. I think it's a shame it took so long/so many posts/so much angst to finally decide to go to the source when all that was ever needed was a simple phone call.
-
Bit late for this one...
I have read anecdotal evidence of a B17 being shot down by a beaufighter (accident of course) using just 16 rounds hispano. B17 crew all survived.
SKurj
-
Originally posted by Batz
Gunnery is more then just ballistics and its connected to everything else.
NAVAL ORDNANCE AND GUNNERY, VOLUME 1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION TO ORDNANCE AND GUNNERY
HOME INDEX
INTRODUCTION TO ORDNANCE AND GUNNERY
A. General
B. Scope of the Text
INTRODUCTION TO ORDNANCE AND GUNNERY
A. General
1A1. Definition of terms
This text is concerned with the study of Naval Ordnance and Gunnery. Together, the terms “ordnance” and “gunnery” embrace weapons and their use.
Ordnance comprises the physical equipment pertaining to weapons. This equipment is further classified as explosive ordnance, including such elements as gun ammunition, torpedoes, mines, bombs, rockets, and the like, and inert ordnance, which includes projecting devices (such as guns, launchers, and release gear), protective armor, and all the equipment needed to operate and control weapons. Aboard ship it refers to all elements that come under the general term “ship’s armament.”
Traditionally, gunnery is the art and science of using guns. However, in the sense used in this book, the term is broadened in agreement with modern usage, to include the operation and control of all elements of armament. Gunnery is concerned with the practical use of ordnance.
-
And the obvious is that you can be killed at "long range"? That's the fact of the longer range gunnery in AH"?
We're talking about the 'frequency', not the 'possibility' here.
You're repeating the same thing again, by ignoring everything else but what the theoretical numbers of ballistics, again. This whole dicussion, can be compressed into following four questions:
1) Can you be killed at long range in real life?
2) Can you be killed at long range in AH?
3) Is it normal for someone to be killed at such range in RL?
4) Is it normal for someone to be killed at such range in AH?
You're picking 1) and 2), and completely ignoring 3) and 4).
What you're saying is like: "cancer, is a common disease and can happen to anyone.. nothing's special about that", when 20 people living on the same block suddenly die of cancer. It's the frequency of the disease happening in such a limited area that alarms people, not the possibility of it - since, a remote possibility happening in a concentrated regularity, is itself should be considered an anomaly.
..........
So the 1.2k kill might be actually a rarity. Then what about 500yards? Or maybe 600? You're an adept P-51 pilot - which ranges do you open up in your Mustang?
Up to which ranges you know you can shoot and kill the guy?
-
Thats deffinition of gunnery proves what?
Gunnery is concerned with the practical use of ordnance.
Thats exactly what we are talking about. Ballistics is just a part of gunnery in general.
I dont fly ah much at all. I havent flown in the main in months not because of "gunnery" but because of the poor gameplay. I am neither happy nor unhappy. You want turn this discussion into something more then it is. As I said I dont try to rationalize the intent behind some one elses post. You otoh seem to think you are able to read minds.
I wasnt touting il2 but using it as an example to show how even with the same ballistics you get entirely different results.
The problem isnt just a matter of dm but with how easy it is to aim hits because of all the artificial "gamey" stuff. When folks use the term "cant hit from that range' they arent talking about ballistics. Like Hohun said
Whether Aces High requires the same degree of skill to achieve "perfect aim" as flying a real fighter does, I can't tell. However, I think this is more a matter of the flight modelling than of the ballistical modelling because the all-decisive question is "How well can you point the guns?"
You again shift to specific point like ammo counters like you did with ballistics. As has been explained to you theres far more to it.
Ammo counters are a crutch and facilitate the amount pf spray and pray you see because after 1 or 2 engagements where a person has expended ammo they will be unsure how much they have left. In the main where their are high concentrations of enemy one may be less likely to spray at long range and wait for a target thats closer in order to get the most out of his ammo load. Now one would look at the ammo counters see 200 rounds and think I am good for another pass. With out them hmm "how much ammo do I have? I'll go rearm". In planes like the hurr1 IIc typhie or the ho 5 in the ki 61 you run out of ammo quick. Withtheir high rate of fire its impossible to track how much ammo you have left. This is less a concern in jugs and ponies but it stillw will have an effect. This is especially relevent to events and scenarios. But you are focussing in on this like its the end all, much like your "ballistics".
I dont care to much if ht changes one or the other. My point is that given similiar ballistics modelling minus the other things I mentioned you see an entirely different result. One that is more in line with what you read about. HT may or may not want to change it but for now it seems to be well recieved as is.
But that has no bearing on how close to reality the effects end up.
-
1) Can you be killed at long range in real life? Absolutely
2) Can you be killed at long range in AH? Absolutely
3) Is it normal for someone to be killed at such range in RL? No, it's rare
4) Is it normal for someone to be killed at such range in AH? No, it's rare
I like to use my .50's at about 250. I'm comfortable using them at ~400. I will try to turn guys farther out than that. (Don't fly the -51 much anymore, usually in slower stuff.)
I think your definition of "long range" and mine are probably different though.
-
no long range is d700 +.
There have been plenty of films posted that show it and I bet just by taking a quick poll you will see kills at those ranges arent rare.
There was even a d1.2k killl film around that was posted.
read what wibuz says in this thread.
So it either comes down to everyone who points out long range gunnery is a liar or exaggerating.
Theres always been 3 camps on this in ah
1. It never happens you are lying or its lag.
2. Its rare thing and besides so what its a game.
3. It happens often.
All three cant be right. As many threads as there have been on this issue and from my own personal observation I am in number 3.
I myself have converge set at 250 but I fly 109s where the guns are in the nose so its not that big a deal. I fire between 200 and 100 yrds with the taters. I find this way I get better use of my ammo and expend less rounds then firing at a longer range. If I miss at range then I have to fight and rely on deflection shooting which causes me to use more ammo then I like.
I used this chart and set my convergence and I found when use .target the mg131 and mk108 match the the chart at 150m.
(http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/wotans/Info/bf109g6u4-gunnery-data2.jpg)
-
I don't think it proves anything. I think it explains why when somebody says "gunnery" I think of the event from the end of the barrel to the hit or miss of the target.
Apparently, when you are talking "gunnery" you're talking damage model and or leathality as part of it. I don't see that; I view those as separate and distinct from "gunnery".
OK, clear something up for me.
You say IL and AH have the same ballistics. To me, that means the same trajectories for identical weapons/rounds and the same kinetics.
Since I don't have it and haven't played it, help me out here.
I assume the leathality is different. By that I specifically mean the effect of each round, chemical or kinetic, is different between AH and IL. BTW, I don't consider damage by either chemical or kinetic energy as part of "gunnery". To me that is properly in the leathality area.
Now, the "artificial gamey stuff" that is different. That would be what, exactly? what are the differences in:
Tracers, hit sprites, range counters, ammo counters, every round/equal damage, hybrid rounds.
I think I know, but I want to be sure. Did I miss any other things that you feel make a big difference?
Now, suppose for a second, that all these things were identical in both games. Do you hypothesize then that suddenly AH shooting habits would be like IL shooting habits? IE: shooting at shorter ranges?
And would the results of the hits at ~ the same ranges be the same with respect to leathality/damage/destruction?
What's your opinion on that?
Look, YOU'RE the one that keeps on bringing up ammo counters like it's some BFD to a player. It's not to me and a lot of others like me I suspect. If I didn't have them, it wouldn't change the way I play. I KNOW I have plenty of ammo for one or two engagements in ANY case. After that, I'm still going to take any good shot, same as I would in the first two or three encounters.
Counters just don't figure into it for me or a lot of people. You make counters a key point of your argument as part of the "far more to it". I'm simply telling you that coutners don't matter to some folks, so you assumption isn't really valid in all cases, yet you continue to focus on it like it's an incredibly key factor.
Hey, like I said, take 'em out. I really doubt anyone will miss them, nor would they switch rides to get those critical counters back. As to reducing long range shooting, I think the effect, particularly in the MA, would be minimal. I know it wouldn't change my engagement tactics in the least.
-
One other thing to note. Way back when this was being churned around before, I think it was Pyro who pointed out that the "anecdotal" accounts were just as likely to underestimate shooting ranges as they were to be right on or overestimate.
Just something to ponder. Go ahead and discard it. ;)
-
When it comes to this specific issue, I'd rather believe Tony than Pyro.
As a very rough rule of thumb, typical maximum effective firing distances in RL would seem to have been around 400m against bombers, 250m against fighters flying straight and level, and 100m or less against manoeuvring targets.
....
And like you have said, we use the term 'long range' in a different sense. I'll rephrase it to 'range of more than 300yards', and then reinsert it to the '4 questions':
1) Can you be killed at a 'range of more than 300yards' in real life?
- Possibly, but not likely.
2) Can you be killed at a 'range of more than 300yards' in AH?
- Happens all the time
3) Is it normal for someone to be killed at such range in RL?
- No, it's rare
4) Is it normal for someone to be killed at such range in AH?
- It's abnormal not to be killed at such ranges. Shot down at 700~800 yards, is yes, not very common. But then, so is 50~100 yards. The former is rare because it is hard, the latter is rare because you don't have to go in that close.
..and if all these 'definitions', as you insist, must be re-defined upon correct terms, then fine. We'll rephrase the term 'gunnery' with the term 'the tendencies and results coming from AH gunnery, including outside influences that effect gunnery'. But does that really make a difference? I don't think so.
.....
Now, suppose for a second, that all these things were identical in both games. Do you hypothesize then that suddenly AH shooting habits would be like IL shooting habits? IE: shooting at shorter ranges?
I believe so, Toad, I belive so.
(..and if there isn't any difference still, even when the many factors concerning the process of shooting are exactly up to IL2/FB levels, then the case be humbly closed... At least we be content there is better eye-candy.)
-
Originally posted by Toad
One other thing to note. Way back when this was being churned around before, I think it was Pyro who pointed out that the "anecdotal" accounts were just as likely to underestimate shooting ranges as they were to be right on or overestimate.
Just something to ponder. Go ahead and discard it. ;)
There is some evidence that ranges were seriously underestimated by average pilots. This is from 'Flying Guns: WW2', about the RAF in 1940:
"The basic problem was that few pilots were able to judge the aiming point correctly. They tended to underestimate both the range to the target and, for a deflection shot, the amount of lead that had to be allowed. And these were not small errors. When during trials pilots were asked to open fire at 300 yards, the actual distances varied between 800 and 1200 yards! Confronted with such unpleasant facts, the official advice given to fighter pilots was to take divide their range estimate by two and double their estimate of the lead! More practical was the advice to open fire from as close as possible, preferably less than 100 yards, and never from more than 300 yards. Halving the range would quadruple the number of hits."
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi everyone,
I'd like to point out that two effects haven't been given enough consideration in this thread:
1) With regard to the original machine guns vs. cannon question, it's important to remember that at least the German cannon ammunition was designed to destroy the structure of the aircraft so that they didn't have to rely on hit on critical components. I'm sure that other 20 mm cannon firing standard explosive shells shared this capability to a certain degree.
2) With regard to long range ballistics, it's imperative not to forget about dispersion.
Dispersion of wing-mounted 12.7 mm machine guns may be 6 mil, which means that at 800 m the projectiles impact in a 4.8 m circle - that's 18.1 m^2, while a fighter-sized target may offer around 3 m^2 target area. In other words, even with perfect aim, only 1 in 6 projectiles is going to hit.
Dispersion of a fuselage-mounted 13 mm machine guns will probably be less than 2 mil. That's an 1.6 m diameter circle, or a 2 m^2 area. That means that with perfect aim, the vast majority of the projectiles is going to hit.
(Of course, wing-mounting versus fuselage mounting doesn't depend on the weapon type. The P-38 for example can be expected to be outstanding in long range firepower.)
Now to get an impression of the effectiveness of machine guns at long range under realistic conditions, we can draw on German studies. According to their figures, the 15 mm MG151 per projectile had 27% of the effectiveness of the MG151/20, which in turn was reckoned to be able to reliably destroy a fighter with 6 random hits. The 12.7 mm Browning projectiles had 68% of the MG151's muzzle energy, which I'll take as indication of their relative effectiveness. As result, I'll consider 33 random hits by 12.7 mm ammunition enough to destroy a fighter aircraft. At 800 m, that would require about 201 rounds to be fired, which a battery of 6 Brownings could manage in about 2.9 s.
For comparison, how about a MG151/20 attack at 800 m? German sources give a 1.9 mil dispersion for this gun, so a 50% hit chance is a rather conservative estimate. That means with perfect aim, 12 rounds would have to be fired from centre-line mounted MG151/20 cannon. That would take a Fw 190 with its wing-root cannon just 0.5 s.
Of course, these calculations rely on the unrealistic assumption of perfect aim. To illustrate the effect of this factor: The Luftwaffe expected that a typical pilot under combat conditions firing a MG151/20 battery at a heavy bomber at 1000 m would have a hit ratio of 3%. However, the ballistic capabilities of the weapon hardly influenced the hit probability: The 50 mm MK214 which probably featured a much better trajectory than any other WW2 air combat weapon still gave the average Luftwaffe pilot no better than 4.2% hit chance under the same conditions.
On the other end of the scale, American gun sight testing after WW2, using a P-38, showed that it was possible for the (admittedly highly skilled) test pilot to make entire tracking runs with the nose within one mil of the ideal aiming point. Such a pilot might have been able to get just the results I've described under "perfect aim" above.
Whether Aces High requires the same degree to skill to achieve "perfect aim" as flying a real fighter does, I can't tell. However, I think this is more a matter of the flight modelling than of the ballistical modelling because the all-decisive question is "How well can you point the guns?"
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Good post, Henning.
As well as normal gun dispersion (which the Brownings generally had more of than the Hispanos) there was 'aim wander', which is what the RAF called the ability to keep the sights on target during a firing run. It was discovered that it was almost impossible to do this in combat, and a burst of fire which may be on-target at the start would drift off-target by the end.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Tony and Hohun, I'm curious about the 'aim wander' mentioned..
What exactly is it? Oscillations or vibrations which would drift the point of aim from its original position?
Or is there a possibility that it could be an optical illusion on the part of the pilot, due to the target maneuvering in minor stick inputs?
-
Hi Kweassa,
>Tony and Hohun, I'm curious about the 'aim wander' mentioned..
>What exactly is it? Oscillations or vibrations which would drift the point of aim from its original position?
I picture it as result of controlling the attacking plane.
First priority is to get the sight on target. That's "position". If it's zeroed in, you get initial hits.
Second priority is to get the sight steady. That's "speed". If it's zero, you can get a burst in.
Third priority is to keep the sight's "speed" at zero. That's "acceleration". As controlling the aircraft consists of reacting on deviations, and a deviation in acceleration is very hard to notice for humans, I'd say it's almost impossible to keep acceleration zeroed as necessary for a sustained on-target burst.
That would be the inevitable "aim wander" in my opinion.
(As an aside, the Norden bombsight system used an autopilot that tried to zero "position" with fixed-throw control inputs while ignoring the other parameters. That was state-of-the-art autopilot technology at the time. When the Sperry sight came out that tried to zero position, speed and acceleration with variable control inputs, it proved - predictably - to be much more accurate than the Norden :-)
>Or is there a possibility that it could be an optical illusion on the part of the pilot, due to the target maneuvering in minor stick inputs?
That, too :-) But I'm sure you'd have "aim wander" even against stationary ground targets.
(Oh, and the control aspect of the problem is the reason I'd tend to agree with the people who prefer the term "gunnery" for the current problem over the term "ballistics".)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
aim wander is noticeable in IL2, not very much, but noticeable. In AH it is nonexistant. If you at gun camera videos, you will find that centering the target and keeping the target centered was not common. The sight was usually "balancing" left to right or viceversa. This aim wander may have little negative effect firing at close range, but would nagate long lange shots. And long range shots are not 1200 yards shots but 400 yards or more.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I don't think it proves anything. I think it explains why when somebody says "gunnery" I think of the event from the end of the barrel to the hit or miss of the target.
Thats why I asked what was the point of posting. I thought I missed something.
"Apparently, when you are talking "gunnery" you're talking damage model and or leathality as part of it. I don't see that; I view those as separate and distinct from "gunnery".
"Apparently"? It just came to you? It was pointed out at the very front of the thread. It was also pointed out by many others..
OK, clear something up for me.
You say IL and AH have the same ballistics. To me, that means the same trajectories for identical weapons/rounds and the same kinetics.
Since I don't have it and haven't played it, help me out here.
I assume the leathality is different. By that I specifically mean the effect of each round, chemical or kinetic, is different between AH and IL. BTW, I don't consider damage by either chemical or kinetic energy as part of "gunnery". To me that is properly in the leathality area.[/b]
Yes lethality, dm etc is different but ballistically what happens when the bullet leaves the barrel is as believable and as "scientific" as ah or your calculations above. Thats why ballistics werent the issue.
[/b]Now, the "artificial gamey stuff" that is different. That would be what, exactly? what are the differences in:
Tracers, hit sprites, range counters, ammo counters, every round/equal damage, hybrid rounds.
I think I know, but I want to be sure. Did I miss any other things that you feel make a big difference?[/b]
Thats already been answered in the thread. Go re read it.
[/b]Now, suppose for a second, that all these things were identical in both games. Do you hypothesize then that suddenly AH shooting habits would be like IL shooting habits? IE: shooting at shorter ranges?
And would the results of the hits at ~ the same ranges be the same with respect to leathality/damage/destruction?
What's your opinion on that?
[/b]
Same as kweassas
I believe so, Toad, I belive so.
(..and if there isn't any difference still, even when the many factors concerning the process of shooting are exactly up to IL2/FB levels, then the case be humbly closed... At least we be content there is better eye-candy.)
Look, YOU'RE the one that keeps on bringing up ammo counters like it's some BFD to a player. It's not to me and a lot of others like me I suspect. If I didn't have them, it wouldn't change the way I play. I KNOW I have plenty of ammo for one or two engagements in ANY case. After that, I'm still going to take any good shot, same as I would in the first two or three encounters.
Counters just don't figure into it for me or a lot of people. You make counters a key point of your argument as part of the "far more to it". I'm simply telling you that coutners don't matter to some folks, so you assumption isn't really valid in all cases, yet you continue to focus on it like it's an incredibly key factor.
Hey, like I said, take 'em out. I really doubt anyone will miss them, nor would they switch rides to get those critical counters back. As to reducing long range shooting, I think the effect, particularly in the MA, would be minimal. I know it wouldn't change my engagement tactics in the least.
Oh bull****.. keep bringing it up?
The only time I mentioned it was in defining "gunnery". I suggested as a part of the overall gunnery model that ammo counters amoung many ohter things (like ballistics) contribute to what we experience in AHs gunnery model. No where (quote me if you see other wise) did I say Ammo counters were an end all or even a major factor.
Outside defining gunnery the only time I "brought it up" was in reponse to your focus on that 1 issue. In the same way you focussed on ballistics even though it has been pointed out consistantly by many of the posters in the thread.
I said exactly what I meant about ammo counters
Ammo counters are a crutch and facilitate the amount of spray and pray you see because after 1 or 2 engagements where a person has expended ammo they will be unsure how much they have left. In the main where their are high concentrations of enemy one may be less likely to spray at long range and wait for a target thats closer in order to get the most out of his ammo load. Now one would look at the ammo counters see 200 rounds and think I am good for another pass. With out them hmm "how much ammo do I have? I'll go rearm". In planes like the hurr1 IIc typhie or the ho 5 in the ki 61 you run out of ammo quick. Withtheir high rate of fire its impossible to track how much ammo you have left. This is less a concern in jugs and ponies but it stillw will have an effect. This is especially relevent to events and scenarios. But you are focussing in on this like its the end all, much like your "ballistics".
No ammo will [b[help[/b] reduce spray and pray as I pointed out above. I also said ammo counters dont cause long range gunnery previously as well.
You just read what you wanna read. You take the general subject of gunnery and narrow down to 2 a specific issues. Even with the definitions that I offered its not an easy thing to narrow down. But you have ignored every post that said specifically that no one is talking directly about ballistics and now you do the same with ammo counters. It was you who made an issue of both.
I certainly never implied or stated ammo counters are the cause of long range gunnery. I said along with many other things getting rid of ammo counters will help reduce spray and pray as outlined in my quote above. In turn along with this and the "other" things the effective range may become closer then what it is now.
What Tony posted here and what you refer to as pyro posting previously doesnt mean that they were shooting folks down at 800 yards when they thought they were at 200.
The fact they underestimated their range was problem and in doing so they were less likely to get kills.
As Tony writes here
And these were not small errors. When during trials pilots were asked to open fire at 300 yards, the actual distances varied between 800 and 1200 yards! Confronted with such unpleasant facts, the official advice given to fighter pilots was to take divide their range estimate by two and double their estimate of the lead! More practical was the advice to open fire from as close as possible, preferably less than 100 yards, and never from more than 300 yards. Halving the range would quadruple the number of hits."
now go back and read Hohuns post
Dispersion of wing-mounted 12.7 mm machine guns may be 6 mil, which means that at 800 m the projectiles impact in a 4.8 m circle - that's 18.1 m^2, while a fighter-sized target may offer around 3 m^2 target area. In other words, even with perfect aim, only 1 in 6 projectiles is going to hit.
Dispersion of a fuselage-mounted 13 mm machine guns will probably be less than 2 mil. That's an 1.6 m diameter circle, or a 2 m^2 area. That means that with perfect aim, the vast majority of the projectiles is going to hit.
(Of course, wing-mounting versus fuselage mounting doesn't depend on the weapon type. The P-38 for example can be expected to be outstanding in long range firepower.)
Now to get an impression of the effectiveness of machine guns at long range under realistic conditions, we can draw on German studies. According to their figures, the 15 mm MG151 per projectile had 27% of the effectiveness of the MG151/20, which in turn was reckoned to be able to reliably destroy a fighter with 6 random hits. The 12.7 mm Browning projectiles had 68% of the MG151's muzzle energy, which I'll take as indication of their relative effectiveness. As result, I'll consider 33 random hits by 12.7 mm ammunition enough to destroy a fighter aircraft. At 800 m, that would require about 201 rounds to be fired, which a battery of 6 Brownings could manage in about 2.9 s.
For comparison, how about a MG151/20 attack at 800 m? German sources give a 1.9 mil dispersion for this gun, so a 50% hit chance is a rather conservative estimate. That means with perfect aim, 12 rounds would have to be fired from centre-line mounted MG151/20 cannon. That would take a Fw 190 with its wing-root cannon just 0.5 s.
Of course, these calculations rely on the unrealistic assumption of perfect aim. To illustrate the effect of this factor: The Luftwaffe expected that a typical pilot under combat conditions firing a MG151/20 battery at a heavy bomber at 1000 m would have a hit ratio of 3%. However, the ballistic capabilities of the weapon hardly influenced the hit probability: The 50 mm MK214 which probably featured a much better trajectory than any other WW2 air combat weapon still gave the average Luftwaffe pilot no better than 4.2% hit chance under the same conditions.
On the other end of the scale, American gun sight testing after WW2, using a P-38, showed that it was possible for the (admittedly highly skilled) test pilot to make entire tracking runs with the nose within one mil of the ideal aiming point. Such a pilot might have been able to get just the results I've described under "perfect aim" above.
Whether Aces High requires the same degree to skill to achieve "perfect aim" as flying a real fighter does, I can't tell. However, I think this is more a matter of the flight modelling than of the ballistical modelling because the all-decisive question is "How well can you point the guns?"
-
You or Brady have CT set up capability. Why don't you set up the CT as close as possible to IL parameters and run it for a month or two and test your theories?
Turn icons off, turn tracer off, whatever you can do; I don't know what IL does and you didn't deign to explain. See what happens.
Beyond that, once again, rather than all this angst, why don't you call HT and see if he'll go for any of this in AH2? Maybe if only as CM options if he won't go for it in the "normal" programming? Nothing to lose....... except the fun of long bbs posts about the sad state of AH.
Why curse the darkness when you can light a candle?
-
I quit the ct some time back before I became "batz".
Il2 has different icon settings from range counters, colors, plane type only etc. It depends on the hosts preference. As I said I am not a no icon advocate although most of my il2 time is with "no icons". No icons in any game I have played makes it artificially difficult.
My preference in il2 in plane type only. You can set color range in close so that the icon turns color when you are right on him. But as I said each individual has their own preference.
You cant turn off icons in AH. Theres 2 settings short and long. 3k 6k.
You cant turn off tracers for everyone either.
You certainly cant make the ah dm like il2. You can adjust gun lethality but as I said thats an issue related to the dm mostly, each round will still cause the same damage. Just in higher or lower amounts. I havent found in the TE where you could redo the hit sprites or remove ammo counters.
Angst? over AH?
I have not advocated change in anyway or made any demand. Quote me if I did other wise. I simply pointed out that Ah has long range gunnery and heres what I think will change it. I dont care much if HT changes it or not. I think it would make for better gameplay but my ideas on gameplay dont fit well with the rest of the AH arena players. I dont think the current model is "real" in its effects.
The current gunnery in no way effects my descision to fly or not fly ah. Again some discussions are just that and dont necessarily have to change anything.
-
So you don't care if anything changes? You just like to beat dead horses? :)
If new ideas are going to be tried, I'd think the best time to get them in, if only as CM options, would be before AH2 is finished and released.
I do occasionally advocate change but I don't make any demands. I think Ah has longer range gunnery than some other sims and more leathality. My point of reference here is WB, the last ACM game I played extensively. I haven't played it since the AH beta though. I feel that gunnery, in the strict definition is better here than WB, that the leathality here is far better than WB but the damage model is about the same and could use improvement. I also dont care if HT changes it. Gunnery, leathality and damage are not the reasons I find it more difficult to enjoy AH lately.
The biggest problem with gameplay is not in gunnery, leathality or damage modeling. The problem can be seen any night in the MA. The game is no longer about fighting in aircraft, IMO, and that's my problem with it. It's a landgrab where numbers are the only truly necessary component.
My style is to float a trial balloon on this BBS and see the reactions it draws. There's some sharp folks here with good info and I always learn something and refine my idea. Then, if the HTC folks don't chime in AND I think it's really a worthwhile idea, I'll talk to the folks that can actually DO SOMETHING about it and see what they think.
Otherwise, I'll just let the dead horse go with just the first kick of the carcass.
-
My involvement in this thread has nothing to do with Ht. It was offering an opinion on the subject. Nothing more. I have no desire to be a lobbyist for change especially given the alternatives. It will change or it wont. If I think it sucks I wont fly it. There seems to be a few changes otw with AH2. We will see.
The cms have asked for additional cm tools for the longest time. But these would amount to no more then variations in Icons. The rest is built into the game.
The dead horse was well flogged 2 posts into your ballistics talk. I just got a few shots in.
. I think Ah has longer range gunnery than some other sims and more leathality. My point of reference here is WB, the last ACM game I played extensively. I haven't played it since the AH beta though. I feel that gunnery, in the strict definition is better here than WB, that the leathality here is far better than WB but the damage model is about the same and could use improvement. I also dont care if HT changes it. Gunnery, leathality and damage are not the reasons I find it more difficult to enjoy AH lately.
I would agree. For the amount of action that AH has it beats most in gameplay. I dont care for large maps and I dont care for fuel porkage and night. Thats why I rarely fly any more.
However I think the "gunnery" adjustments mentioned would make ah more fun but it only has a very small impact on the fun level overall.
But what do I know.
-
:D
Just one long "it doesn't meet my perception of reality" thread wasn't it then?
BTW, a question on tracer. Obviously they used them in WW2 and obviously they were an "aiming crutch". I'm not sure I understand your preference from what you said. You prefer them removed totally or what? As I said, I have no idea how IL3 does it, but I assume they have tracer ammo?
-
tracers were in intervals in the ammo chain. You didnt aim with tracers because ballistically they were different then the other rounds.
Il2 has tracers in every round as well. From what I heard Ht will redo ah tracers in AH2. Ah tracers now are all you need to aim. The gunsite isnt required. Atleast not for me. My gunsite is blank. The tracer effect in ah allows for pin point accurracy.
No this thread was started by F4 wondering why 2 planes with similiar performance are radically different in their ability to kill. The big difference is cannons, in particular the hissos. It then went into into a general gunnery question including dm and long range hits. For the most part I was out of thast discussion.
I believe it was you that tried to take it elsewhere by focussing solely on ballistics. Thats when I came back to this thread and asked why you were doing that when it was so clearly stated through out the thread ballistics werent in question and that some thing "other" was creating the results in ah. I then listed my opinion on what they were. You then directed your attention from ballistics to ammo counters etc.
I think thats pretty accurate but i cant be bothered to go back and check.
;)
-
Yes, and I was under the impression that AH has tracer in at intervals? That we're only seeing about 1 in 5 rounds. Is this incorrect?
If tracers were not an aiming aid, what were they then? Why'd they use them?
And, it brings to mind the question that if you think tracers in AH contribute to the part you don't like, what then of IL2 which you apparently consider superior in this regard but uses the same tracer system? It would seem then that the tracers have nothing to do with the difference as they are the same in both games. Clear this up for me, will you?
Nah, it was a leathality/damage model thread that had a few "shouldn't shoot that far" elements. I posted the comments that I felt were to that effect. If I were feeling supercilious, I'd put something in about re-reading. ;)
Ammo counters again? OK, let's review. You listed them in your comment about crutches or whatever, I gave you my opinion on them, you replied to that, I replied, ad nauseaum. Now, seems to me it's an unbroken chain that started with you. And here we are. Unless, of course, no one gets to reply to your opinions with an opinion of their own.
-
<<>>>
yes , what were the tracers used for? maybe they were used to let the enemy know you were shooting at them, rather sporting old boy. pip pip cheereo
-
No toad you just shift around. "Ammo counters being crutch" was a direct reply to your question when you finally excepted nobody gave a crap about your little charts.
So you latched on to it. And took it out context.
Il2 tracers are different but who said superior? Thats your word. They are different and you cant aim by tracer.
As to 1 in 5 on ah tracers I dunno but in ah with these tracers theres no need for a gunsite. Matched with the current hit sprites and long range gunery is made easy.
And I just reread the thread. Quote one person who said bullets could not shoot far? or hurt you?
You took the 1 thing you thought you could come into to the thread with and "say look these numbers are right" arent I brilliant. Even after numerous times it was pointed out that no one was referring to ballistics. Then you moved onto ammo counters and shifted directions. Maybe be a case of adult ADD.
Dunno but I'll leave you to it....
John you're an idiot ask Toad to do a search for ya Im sure he will find pilot accounts that talk about tracers.
-
So the "difference" in tracer depiction makes the AH ones a crutch but not the IL2 ones?
Talk about dancing around. Do you ever answer a question or just deny, deny, deny.
I didn't take anything out of context. I said I disagreed with you. You put forth a hypothesis:
the range at which the average ah'er can shoot and kill; is much further then in rl.
And then gave a laundry list of reason why you thought this might be.
As has been stated previously theres a number of reasons
I simply disagreed with you, in context.
I must toss in that I think the ammo counter thing is kind of a red herring given the situation in the game. Running out of ammo just isn't that big a deal.
I think most of us routinely stay in the fight until the guns go dry; at least I do. Would I do any different without counters? Nope.
Can't stand it when people question your pronouncements or what?
..and let me save ya from paging back.
Quotes from this topic:
Brady: Ya it's crazy being able to nail planes at 1200 with 50cal's and Hispanos,
Kweassa: I am almost certain, that once such difficulties in long range shooting is represented in AH, the whinings about guns, will dissipate in its totality
Kweassa: But people do start complaining in disbelief when they get hit like that out at 500~600 yards
NIklas: I´m still convinced that Hispona shells are overmoddeld for long range shots, and Mg-151 rounds probably undermodelled. But as long as i don´t know the exact velocity in AH of each shell at 100 and for example 1000 yards i can´t make an exact proof.
Mia389: I hate getting killed at 1.2 away. For the Bnz,ers its good though I guess. This gunnery we have now feels gamey to me.
Can't stand it when people question your pronouncements or what?
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
We're talking about the 'frequency', not the 'possibility' here.
So the 1.2k kill might be actually a rarity. Then what about 500yards? Or maybe 600? You're an adept P-51 pilot - which ranges do you open up in your Mustang?
Up to which ranges you know you can shoot and kill the guy?
as a confirmed pony/spit/109/la7 dweeb....
anything under 400 yds is a sure bet....
for the pony... i say i have an outside chance upto 600 yds (for an ourright "kill) if the bogey is in a zoom/extend (stable not jinking) and i lead just right and spray <------- then i have a good chance. if he's manuvering, not so good. i might see sprites, i might take off some minor piece, but it's not a "kill" i can snipe out to i'd say 1.2, yes, but to no effect on anything unless the plane is real damaged or i get a lucky server pilot kill... 1.2, or even at 800 it's rare to get a "kill" even with .50's.
ditto for the hispanos, except it's even closer in than the .50's. i've hit stuff at 1k (most likely with the .50's, not the hispanos) but no "kill.
the 109 and la's have much shorter reach, altho i have hit stuff out to 1k with the lw mg's (in a fw when you can spray spray spray).
furthest i've hit with the la7 is about 700 yds. no kill.
let's not overlook the net lag factor. i avow that things are more disparate than they used to be before the great masses arrived. now you might see someone 1.2k on your 6 but he may be seeing and firing at 800-900 yds... this is at the edge of the spray .50's and get a lucky shot.
i do maintain that 800-1.2k kills are *not* common nor frequent. but do bear in mind there's a lot more people playing, so the luck factor is porportionately increased in these kinds of shots.
you guys are making a molehill out of the grand canyon on the .50/hispano issue.
and if you're concerned with the "spraying," well, why'd you let them get your 6?
-
umm niklas is talking about the mixed hisso hybrib. He mentioned that the ap he mix and that the ap has"better" ballistics then the he. I know that tony said that the Brits used He almost exclusively.
Heres his 1st post
And what do you think, does the AH HS shell slows down to 43% at 600m?? Imo not. Because i think they made a serious mistake. I know that there´s a AP chart around. Imo HTC raised the curve simply to higher muzzle velocity. but the AP round is heavier and has better shape. So IMO (!!) and without any serious proof i assume that the HS shell in AH has the higher muzzle velocity of the HE shell compared to the AP shell (faster acceleration in the barrel, lighter), but NOT the faster decellaration in the air once it flies, and NOT the worse aerodynamics of the flat nose.
On the other hand, we all know that there´s a german mine shell velocity chart out there. The mine shell has higher muzzle velocity than the HE shell, but once in air it slows down faster - less mass simply. Now what happens when we drop the curve down to the initial velocity of the HE shell? Lower muzzle velocity AND bad trajectory.
This is my theory, HTC may check it if i´m right, without their data i can´t check it whether i´m correct or not.
Then he folowed up with this
Read what i wrote. I once tested the deceleration of the Hispano shell, and it was comparable to the .50cal AP. So i´m sure that the Hispano shell has the high inital muzzle velocity of the HE shell (correct), but the low decelaration of the AP shell (incorrect) due to higher weight and better shape.
And this would mean that all Hispano fliers go out since 2 years with highly overmodelled weapons for long range shots...
The Hispano shell does definitly NOT slow down by 40% the first 600 yards in AH! Another hint...
So if if the brit hissos in ah benefit from the hybrid round then hes right i dunno or care. But nothing you posted comes any where near addressing that.
You went into BCs long before those quotes you provided above.
Il2 tracers again, you need to use your site in Il2 not in Ah. I never said Il2 was real or there were no gameplay concesions. I am not a realism Nazi. i just think that along with the other things I stated help contribute to long range gunery.
You specifically "targeted" :p ammo counters. Anything that was brought up about ammo counters after that dealt with your focus on it.
Can't stand it when people question your pronouncements or what?
-
I could comment on the rest of your "factors", but I was hoping you'd explain a bit about the differences in these factors between IL2 and AH before I offered my opinion.
But it's pretty obvious you aren't in this for discussion, just pronouncement.
You went into BCs long before those quotes you provided above.
Really? Does it bother you not checking the facts before you pronounce? Guess not.
08-01-2003 02:30 PM Brady: Ya it's crazy being able to nail planes at 1200 with 50cal's and Hispanos,
08-02-2003 06:03 AM Kweassa: I am almost certain, that once such difficulties in long range shooting is represented in AH, the whinings about guns, will dissipate in its totality
08-04-2003 07:47 AM Kweassa: But people do start complaining in disbelief when they get hit like that out at 500~600 yards
08-04-2003 08:08 AM Niklas: I´m still convinced that Hispona shells are overmoddeld for long range shots, and Mg-151 rounds probably undermodelled. But as long as i don´t know the exact velocity in AH of each shell at 100 and for example 1000 yards i can´t make an exact proof.
08-05-2003 04:23 PM Toad: For example, before anyone can even begin to talk ballistics, you have to know the ballistic coefficient of the projectile. (First mention by me of BC.)
-
None of those quotes has anything to do with ballistics. Almost every one of those you quoted said so in other posts after you brought it up.
Hell f4 said so even earlier
I could care less about ballistics. I care about the damage caused by each round.
on 08-04-2003 04:14 PM
What did any of your liitle charts do address anything in those quotes?
Nothing is what.
If you wanna learn about il2 go pic up a copy or try the demo.
I didnt make prononcements I offered my opinion in the context of this thread. Notice I never asked you for yours because I dont care. I just wondered why you were so hyped up on ballistics in a thread that wasnt about them. Nothing posted on that regard did anything to prove or disprove anything.
So I stick to my opinion that you were "hanging" around the thread waiting for a chance to demonstrate you brilliance.
-
Sure they do. Hitting at any range is dependent upon ballistics. But go ahead and pretend it isn't.
The charts show that if anything, range is undermodeled in AH. The rounds artificially terminate ~ 1.1 or 1.2
Nah, I'm not going to bother with IL2 until it's MMOG. Maybe then. Nice that you're so eager to make statements about it but not provide anything in the way of support of them.
Well, you're sure demonstrating your brilliance at pronouncements.
Even if you can't get a timeline right. BTW, nice reversal. :D :D
-
Hitting at any range is dependent upon ballistics. But go ahead and pretend they don't.
Lord be merciful, Toad.
You're ignoring every other factor besides the ballistics, again!
Come to think of it, there's rarely any thing you've posted in this discussion which shows any amount of interest towards the so many factors Batz and I have mentioned, which directly influences the success rate of a shot connecting its target at ranges that are way over optimum.
Everytime such facts are mentioned, it always digresses to some other subject... on how we should define gunnery, or how Batz should just go play IL2, or how he should read the posts right... and then, it returns to the point where we have to start all over again - 'long range hits are ballistics. If ballistics are right, everything else is also right'.
Again, you accuse us of ignoring ballistics, which we say again and again not. Nobody is questioning the POSSIBILITY - we are questioning the REGULARITY of shots being connected in AHISTORICAL ranges where mostly, pulling the trigger should be considered a waste - namely, shots over 300~400 yards?
-
ballistics? Give me a riffle, put me over a moving truck and then tell me how good is that weapon, how improved is its sight, how long is its range and how flat is its trajectory. No matter, I'll be unable to hit anything with that while the truck is moving.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Lord be merciful, Toad.
You're ignoring every other factor besides the ballistics, again!
Again, you accuse us of ignoring ballistics, which we say again and again not. Nobody is questioning the POSSIBILITY - we are questioning the REGULARITY of shots being connected in AHISTORICAL ranges where mostly, pulling the trigger should be considered a waste - namely, shots over 300~400 yards?
and you're conveniently forgetting that in 1 weeks time in AH there are more planes shot down than in ww2 in it's entirety.
you're also forgetting this isn't real, we have unlimited ability to become better shots with an unlimited amount of ammo to do so.
simply get good enough to shoot them down first and not give them your 6 at 600-1.2k where you risk dying from a so-called "gamey" aspect.
-
Originally posted by MANDOBLE
ballistics? Give me a riffle, put me over a moving truck and then tell me how good is that weapon, how improved is its sight, how long is its range and how flat is its trajectory. No matter, I'll be unable to hit anything with that while the truck is moving.
bzzzzzttt. sorry here's a true to life experience of mine.
riding in the back of my dad's f150 on the farm he's working on - doing maybe 15mph.
have a good ole daisy bb gun, single pump spring with a faux scope (big plain tube).
spot a motion in a pasture we're passing, oh maybe a good 5-10 yds range. take quick "aim" and fire.... tell dad to stop stop stop!! went to see what happened.
nailed a gopher right in the head (the bb didn't fully penetrate) the etxra velocity from the truck must've helped it do what it did from that range over a normal shot. (my brother and i had bb wars where you could actually see the bb coming and duck if you were quick - and raised a red welt if you weren't. amazed we didn't put any eyes out.)
i guess i'm just a better shot. who was it that related how american farmboys who became pilots were better shots on average due to their experience with leading?
you a city slicker, eh, d00d?
;)
was it a lucky shot? you bet. repeatable? well, if you had 1,000 trucks driving by every day with someone taking that shot, i'd imagine you'd see several a week.
-
Cod, be a realist Kweassa.
There's simply no denying that ballistics, from the barrel to the target, are the foundation of all gunnery.
The other factors are simply lesser factors, some of them nearly insignificantly small. Refer to the list posted upthread. Some of those are mere nits, they're not even lice.
Then there's the RL stuff that is considered unRL here, like tracer apparently. I don't even know how to categorize a concept like that.
And I do apologize for thinking everyone understood gunnery to be what gunnery is as it is defined. I should have known that gunnery includes leathality and damage modeling... even though it doesn't. Well, I guess I should have known, but I'm not sure how I would have.
Your yardages are your perception. It's clear that rounds like the .50 travel 4-5 times that distance with sufficient energy to penetrate aircraft. It's also clear they "disappear" in the game long before that range. More unRL stuff.
There's things that could be done and probably should be done in various areas. Icons for instance. You can go search for my suggestions on that, I've surely posted them often enough.
But the bottom line is that someone is going to have to make a good case for changing something.. say icons.. and present it to HT. I personally have done this with icons and gotten nowhere. He has his reasons, we disagree and it's his game. So, I'm done with it and I accept it.
However, I wish you best of luck in your campaigns. As I did with Brady, I suggest you go to the source for your best chance of success. Repetitive threads usually don't get much done. Sometimes they do, but usually they don't.
YMMV.
-
Jeez, Shane.
Makes me want to stick Mandoble up in the back of a '79 Ford 250 with a 12 guage in one scabbard on the sissy bar and a .308 in the other scabbard and take him out on a Kansas coyote hunt.
It'd undoubtedly be an eye-opener for him.
:D
Your story made me remember the time I killed a flying rooster phesant from the back of a moving truck with a .22 pistol. Yeah, he was going straight away at about 30 yards, but it was still fun.
And, lest you folks jump up shouting "once in a life time shot", I've got witnesses that saw me do it two more times. Once with a pistol and once with an iron sight .22 rifle. Different days though, even different years. Wasn't even shooting tracer.
Oh.. wait.. I couldn't have done that! Which means I've never killed a running coyote with a rifle from the back of a moving truck either.. except I've got witnesses to that too.....
Of course, aircraft surely bounce around in the sky like demented bucking broncos. Planes are much worse than a '79 F250 with no shocks running across the prairie.
-
and you're conveniently forgetting that in 1 weeks time in AH there are more planes shot down than in ww2 in it's entirety.
you're also forgetting this isn't real, we have unlimited ability to become better shots with an unlimited amount of ammo to do so.
simply get good enough to shoot them down first and not give them your 6 at 600-1.2k where you risk dying from a so-called "gamey" aspect.
True, but shouldn't that apply for an explanation for why ahistorical range shots come out AFTER the proper inhibiting factors have been implemented? Not before. ;)
Since those factors aren't present currently, we'll never know if those shots come out because we're crack-shots, or not, would we?
Which could mean either;
a) the 'we're better shots' theory is total bullshi*, and people have been hitting at superior ranges only thanks to the fact that difficulties which should be present, is not there..
or
b) Indeed we're crack-shots. Even the average n00b who shoots out from 500~600yards and gets a kill with those Hizookas and 50cals, is in effect a better shot then even the best of WW2 pilots.
.....
That's why we'll have to, or at least, we'd like to find out. The experiences of IL2/FB suggests that b) is bullshi*. So let's see if that holds really true for AH.
Like I said, if we're really crack-shots, then there is no reason for you to object the implementation of such factors other than ballistics - since as you claim, we're all better shots and it won't bother us anyway. Nothing's gonna change - what have you got to lose? ;)
ps) or, are you objecting to it at all?
The tone of your post seems to suggest so, but I don't really see a "no, I don't want those factors inside AH". Interestingly, that holds true for Toad's posts, too. No definitive "I want" or "I don't want" - only vague debates on trifle matters.
Either way, you people need some explaining to do.
If you also want those factors in AH, which would probably be a chance to prove your "crack-shot theory", then really, no reason for us to argue. We're looking at the same 'want'.
If you don't want those factors in AH, well, that explains a lot by itself, if you know what I mean. ;)
ps2) *snort!*
-
You qualify with an M2 .50 cal by hitting a BMP sized target (as I remember front facing) at 1000m in under 14 rounds. The weapon can easily reach out that far, and do it accurately, from an open "hand stabilized" mount. Vibration isn't an issue, velocity and bullet drop isn't an issue, just look and see where the first short burst impacted and adjust the next one. Now, a plane has less stability in some ways (environmental factors), but it is more stable in others (rigidity), and features a nice optical sight
Maybe there were other factors, but the weapon is capable of 1000 yards easily, and accurately, in and of itself. That is why it soldiered on as the main weapon on the M-113 in armored recon roles into the 1980s, where you would be engaging light ARMORED vehicles at engagement ranges up to 1000 yards, though perhaps more in the 600 yard or so range in congested Europe. It was still up to that task, though perhaps less so by the 1980s.
As for tracers, you typically used the impact point more for adjustment, but they weren't really all that different ballisticly, not enough to notice any real-world difference. I do remember a full belt load of tracers that was fired off once for the lazer effect. Not a good idea for the barrel :)
IMO, the shorter engagement ranges in WW2 likely are due to:
1. Poor marksmanship, particularly deflection shooting. This has been admitted in a variety of sources, from a variety of airforces. Bong even took remedial shooting between tours while already a high scoring ace. Pilots like Hartmann seemed to prefer closer shooting primarily to do the most damage, particularly with a plane carrying 1 20mm and x2 lower velocity 13mm or 7.9 mm. Not really a weapons set to be doing a lot of 600 yard spraying. (As an aside, didn’t Hartmann claim to be an average shot in his book, but one of his comrades say he could hit farther when he needed to?).
2. I don't know how many WW2 pilots with life and death on the line would fly a wings level, smooth, non-maneuvering extension with a plane 600 yards behind them. These planes are the only ones I seem to hit with any regularity at distances 500 yards or greater (in a .50 or hispanio armed plane). How many people get any kind of deflection shot at that range? If I do even a few slow, non e-burning maneuvers I have no worry about being hit from a spraying F6F or P-51 etc. or Spitfire at those ranges, though the occasional ping you might get can be critical if it is a Hispanio.
3. Most convergence weapons were set at the approved, least common denominator, average pilot skill approved range, typically somewhere around 300 yards, give or take. What would happen in AH if an historical 400 yard max convergence limit was set for the planeset? I would have no problem with this, particularly since I end up flying the La7 a lot in the "fly to hopefully find a fight/run from the gangbang" arenas lately :)
Charon
-
May I add..
4. Most planes rarely had ammo counters, which would allow you to carefully keep track of amount of ammo left. If there wasn't any precise way to keep track of ammo other than your memory cells, then the tenedency to pull triggers become very very conservative.
5. There were no tennis-ball sized hit sprites in real life - Granted, that timely sparks on surfaces of a plane out far(due to AP MG rounds striking), may have been more visible in real life than the sparks visible in IL-2(since human eyes are more sensitive to real light sparks, than simulated sparks), but they also disappear a lot faster, and are much smaller. Currently in AH, sparks remain visible for a relatively long time, confirming series of hits you can instantly identify and adjust your aim, according to it. In the case of cannons, nobody would try use cannons over such ranges anyway.
6. US .50s did not have smoke trail tracers. RAF/LW cannon shells leave a pretty fuzzy line behind. AH tracers, regardless of MGs and cannons, leave a clear and precise trail of a grey line.
7. The difficulties in aiming due to the difficulty of fine control input, might have been more present in real life - the "aim wander" suggested and explained by Tony and Hohun.
8. AH dispersion of bullet trajectory, is not effected by air turbulence. I don't think there is turbulence at all, in AH.
9. Icon ranges, give out exact timing of fire. If icons are supposed to fill in the gap of inadequate detail levels, then the exact range is not a real necessity - closure or departure can be depicted in many different ways, as suggested by other icon systems. Even a simple "+" or "-" sign can do. The difficulty in judging distances is pronounced in icon settings without exact distances displayed, such as in some settings in IL2/FB or even the recent Target:Rabaul - you get an idea of closure, but no exact distance. Since I can't trust my own feelings are accurate, I would prefer to go within a range which is unmistakeably close, rather than try out my luck in a distance I'm not sure whether it is 200m or300.
.. and many more.
-
rebuttals:
4. pilots also had the options to set whatever kind of tracers wherever and how much. example: many would put tracers in the last 20 rds (for example) only to let them know exactly when they're running short. i could set mine to show the 1/2, 2/3 3/4 points on my belts. that's as an effective counter as anything would be. you could even use different colors.
5. the eye can pick up a lot more detail than what we perceive on our various monitors. for example, you'd see strikes on the enemy planes, you'd see bits and pieces falling off (and possibly even hitting some as you follow). not all vid cards/cpus or monitors are created equal.
6. tracers in r/l were not as wobbly as you might think. that's vibration on the camera mounts. see charon's post re: laser effect. admittedly AH doesn't model recoil, which *would* have an impact on things - some planes more than others.
7. there's plenty of aim difficulty present in what many, many experience in AH as "nose bounce." fine control is harder in ah than in rl in some ways due to our inability to "feel" the plane going thru the virtual air.
8. no there's no air turbulence - i can imagine how difficult it might be to model in without some kind of "gamey concessions" like the current wind layers. would you like to give it a shot?
9. you're free to turn off your icons in AH. altho' in the MA it might get a tad confusing. who was it that posted some RAF pilots were instructed to fire at 300 yds and wond up firing from between 800-1,000 yds out? (and probably scoring *some* hits). again the limitations of computers at present can in no way compare to good old fashion mark IV eyeballs. remember, pilots in general had to have at least 20/20 to qualify for combat duty. you wear glasses? maybe you shouldn't be allowed to play AH? :cool:
bottom line... you don't get hit at 600+ if you're doing what you should be. and if you are and still get hit, chalk it up to "not your day."
this of course relates to fighter to fighter shooting, not ftr to buff, altho vice-versa seems a tad too easy ( i can't hit squat with buff guns tho - why? because i don't "practice.")
-
Originally posted by Toad
Sure they do. Hitting at any range is dependent upon ballistics. But go ahead and pretend it isn't.
The charts show that if anything, range is undermodeled in AH. The rounds artificially terminate ~ 1.1 or 1.2
Nah, I'm not going to bother with IL2 until it's MMOG. Maybe then. Nice that you're so eager to make statements about it but not provide anything in the way of support of them.
Well, you're sure demonstrating your brilliance at pronouncements.
Even if you can't get a timeline right. BTW, nice reversal. :D :D
You are full of ****, its pathetic really.
Hiiting at range is dependent on good aiming more then anything. What allows for good aiming at range in AH? Tracers and range counters. Add in a very large hit sprite and its down right easy. Even if HTs ballistic model was proked for the worse the things I mentioned still make long range gunnery easy.
As you said you have no more clue then the rest of how accurate hts ballistic model is. So even if with your charts they prove nothing especially if ah deals in hybrid rounds as niklas suggested.
Its a bull**** pointless point in the context of this thread. In the end its meaningless.
As Hohun stated
Whether Aces High requires the same degree of skill to achieve "perfect aim" as flying a real fighter does, I can't tell. However, I think this is more a matter of the flight modelling than of the ballistical modelling because the all-decisive question is "How well can you point the guns?"
Whats helps you aim well in ah? Orange tenis ball tracers and range counters. The gunsite itself is visual hinderence for long range shots.
Ah 50 tracers
(http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/wotans/Info/tracersah.jpg)
Il2 50s
(http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/wotans/Info/traceril2.jpg)
see the smoke trail and big orange ball in the ah tracer?
Deny it if you must buts thats one of the biggets contributers to long range gunnery. Atleast when I fly 50 planes. Ofcourse those images are compressed and in game those tracers are even more visible.
Brady: Ya it's crazy being able to nail planes at 1200 with 50cal's and Hispanos,
he reposted that on 08-09-2003 06:56 PM I thought thats the thread you meant, But going back to his 1st post
Ya it's crazy being able to nail planes at 1200 with 50cal's and Hispanos, I got two Kills with the P47 on Gerges at 1000 in the CT daybefore yesterday, not that this is unushual mind you.
hes clearly talking about the same thing as the rest of us are. That is how easy it is to or as Hohun puts it ""How well can you point the guns?" . Not about ballistics.
later he even tells you that directly
In short that the Balistics/ trajectory of the weapons is not realy all that important hear ( nore was it realy a point i raised)
on 08-06-2003 12:50 AM
Mia389: I hate getting killed at 1.2 away. For the Bnz,ers its good though I guess. This gunnery we have now feels gamey to me.
He posted this on 08-09-2003 02:01 PM well after your diversion into ballistics. I take his deffinition of gunnery in the context of an online game to include all factors like the rest of us do.
And I do apologize for thinking everyone understood gunnery to be what gunnery is as it is defined.
Even the definition you provided contradicts you
A. General
1A1. Definition of terms
This text is concerned with the study of Naval Ordnance and Gunnery. Together, the terms “ordnance” and “gunnery” embrace weapons and their use.
Ordnance comprises the physical equipment pertaining to weapons. This equipment is further classified as explosive ordnance, including such elements as gun ammunition, torpedoes, mines, bombs, rockets, and the like, and inert ordnance, which includes projecting devices (such as guns, launchers, and release gear), protective armor, and all the equipment needed to operate and control weapons. Aboard ship it refers to all elements that come under the general term “ship’s armament.”
Traditionally, gunnery is the art and science of using guns. However, in the sense used in this book, the term is broadened in agreement with modern usage, to include the operation and control of all elements of armament. Gunnery is concerned with the practical use of ordnance.
Thats exactly what we are saying in the context of ah
and all the equipment needed to operate and control weapons.
and
to include the operation and control of all elements of armament
Tracers ammo counters range icons and hit sprites fit right in with your definition. So which is it. Gunnery = is pure ballistics or do you go by the definition you provided.
I checked the 1st and last in your timeline of quotes but even so the other quotes had nothing to do with ballistics.
The quotes from kweassa had nothing to do with ballistics either. Not only is it apparent in his posts that you quote from but he like everyone else said so.
Niklas was talking about the ballistics of hybrid HE/AP hisso round. Nothing you posted addresses that.
Again Hohun hit it dead on ""How well can you point the guns?" and in ah its down right easy despite any of that "I am better trained then ww2 pilots were".
If nothing that we said contributes to long range gunnery then what difference does it make if its there or not? And what difference does it make that some of us hold the opinion that its the other things seperate from ballistics that are the main factors?
Like I said you are just full of **** at this point.
Everytime such facts are mentioned, it always digresses to some other subject... on how we should define gunnery, or how Batz should just go play IL2, or how he should read the posts right... and then, it returns to the point where we have to start all over again - 'long range hits are ballistics. If ballistics are right, everything else is also right'.
kweassa is spot on. Lets see what it shifts to know. My typing and spelling hasnt been pointed out yet.
-
fyi those 2 mages are from p47s firing all guns in a full stream. tell me which one would make long range gunnery easy?
-
Originally posted by Shane
well, if you had 1,000 trucks driving by every day with someone taking that shot, i'd imagine you'd see several a week.
You are wrong, long range kills (> 300 yards) is common and I see them ALL the time. What I dont see frequently is 150 yards or less kills, and when I see it, my next move is usually to bail out with a smoking/burning spit inside my cockpit.
-
Originally posted by Batz
Hiiting at range is dependent on good aiming more then anything.
Really?
Then go to the range and shoot a shotgun with slug ammo at a 1000 meter target. Post a picture of the target when you're done. Thanks.
You're supposed to be a shooter?
Thanks for the pics. You've finally decided to explain your prounouncements? What a change. Yeah, they're different. As for "smoke trail" seems like I see a lot of that in the US gun cam films.
Actually, I have talked to Pyro a bit about the ballistic trajectory calculations AND the damagae modeling when we were down at the Con. I'm pretty confident that he's using essentially the same ballistic computer that's available online. The results are very similar.
I also remember him saying that the AH damage model, LIKE EVERY OTHER GAME'S DAMAGE MODEL is always going to be somewhat subjective. There's no help for it as there is NO WAY TO STANDARDIZE DAMAGE IN A FORMULA.
Note: DAMAGE or LEATHALITY is not "gunnery". Like it says, Gunnery is the art and science of using guns. And the beginning, basic building block of gunnery is ballistics. In the beginning, there's the gun and the projectile. All your other elements are added later and are ancillary. Sorry you can't see the direct relation to comments about the "famous" 1.2 kills to ballistics.
You do remember HT asking for films of just one of the millions of 1.2 kills reported right? Took forever for just ONE to show up. It's bloody rare that a previously undamaged plane gets shot down at 1.2 and it's more rare if he's maneuvering.
Yet it's still preached like an everyday occurance and the faithful all genuflect.
-
There you go again, keep in the context of this game. It doesnt matter if ht modelled the ballistics of the 50s to match mg151/15mm. With all the visual aids present in AH it would be an easy adjustment in aim. The ballistic for all we know could be 100% correct or 100% wrong it wouldnt matter in this context.
As long as you can see and track the round through out its flight path and where end the rounds goes its matter of adjustment.
The visual adds in AH go dirtectly to the point in determining how well you aim.
As kweassa pointed out and afaik US .50s did not have smoke trail tracers. RAF/LW cannon shells leave a pretty fuzzy line behind. AH tracers, regardless of MGs and cannons, leave a clear and precise trail of a grey line. Theres plenty of guncam footage on the web and I remember just the other day watching Johnsons p47s shoot down a 190 and I dont recall the orange balls or smoke trail. You could see some of the bullets strike but the duration of the flash and its size was much smaller then ah.
Heres the hit sprite in AH.
(http://prod.bsis.bellsouth.net/coDataImages/p/Groups/70/70408/folders/68000/435639AH00003.jpg)
Il2 50 hit (but each round has a specific "sprite". 3cm hit sprite is actual "bigger" then ah"
See three hits 2 7 mm 1 20mm exactly the same.
(http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/wotans/Info/hitil2.jpg)
The thing with the il2 50 hit is that it the sprite duration is so short that while flying you dont see it at all but you see the particles that trail of the targeted plane. In that pic I had slowed down the game the paused it to take that pic.
Heres an il2 3cm strike. The round actualy passed through the horizontal planes making a hole the detonated on the other side instead of ripping the entire tail off.
(http://prod.bsis.bellsouth.net/coDataImages/p/Groups/70/70408/folders/68000/435648Il200002.jpg)
As shown the visual aids in ah contribute to long range gunnery. Thats my opinion. I think its pretty solid.
I havent seen much randomization in the AH dm, 2 hits in the wing = x damage 1 more = wing breaks (numbers are just offered as an example). Angle of impact, probrability that some rounds may just pass through the wing with out hitting anything vital etc dont seem to be present.
Take bombers for instant in the AH event Big we tested weak points on bombers. We found that 3 20mm hits to a wing tip would seperate it every time. As such in 2 passes through 50+ b17s I killed 10. (8 credited 2 assists that I de winged but my wing man hit as well). No randomization at all. If thats not standard or close to it I dunno what.
I will say this the more randomization the more whining will occur. "I shot xx wing 5 times and he flew off" etc. Similiar to some of the p4 whines.
In the context of a computer game all those things that contribute to ones idea or persception of "gunnery" can be included for the sake of discussion as "gunnery" over all. For most of us we dont know why when we fire a type 99 mk 1 at 200 yards we get 50% less damage the the type 99 mk2 at the same range. In this sense is it DM, Ballistic, or lethality? In this thread its conceded that its not ballistics.
But if we stick to the definition you provided then all those thing modelled in AH that contribute to the operation and control of elements of armament include the tracers, range counters, hit sprites and yes even ammo counters again.
I said what I thought long range gunnery meant and that d700+. As pointed out some say it never happens others say its lag, others say its rare and others claim to see it and do it all the time. I have sseen enough to know that kills in excess of d700 arent "rare" they may not be the "norm" but neither are kills in side 250m. My opinion is that the effective kill range in ah averages out to about 450-500 yards. Where as Il2 its inside 250m.
-
Ballistics in the context of the game? Ah, then I see you got my point. OK, in the game, why do rounds terminate ~1.2 when even the 13mm will go farther than that? We all want realism, right?
Tracer? A real quick search turned these up.
Watch the "Pacific Theater" clip at the bottom, second clip. (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/flightsims/oberstguncam/Frameset/actualguncamfootagesix.htm)
Tell me what you think of the tracer and hit sprites in that one.
And a couple of shots from the 339th FG. The Group was assigned into 66th Fighter wing of the Third Air Division, 8th USAAF on 4. April 1944, arriving at Station 378 Fowlmere, Cambs on the 5th, where they remained until 10 October 1945. Throughout this period the Group flew P-51Bs and Cs until equipped with P-51Ds.
12 Sept, 1944 - Capt Bradford Stevens downing a Me-109 - confirmed destroyed. Sequence of still shots taken from gun camera film.
(http://www.web-birds.com/8th/339/gun/r59-00.jpg)
Is that a smoke trail?
(http://www.web-birds.com/8th/339/gun/r59-02.jpg)
Yeah, I think it is.
(http://www.web-birds.com/8th/339/gun/r59-07.jpg)
Of course tracer are aiming aids. Sure they help in long range gunnery; that's why they used them. The question is, after looking at the above film clip and stills from actual guncam.... where is AH so far off? Some, maybe. Way off? I'm somewhat skeptical. Look at the "Miscellaneous" film clip, third sequence. Lot's of tracer smoke there (LW).
I would like to have more stuff falling off when hit as well. I think HT said we're getting that in AH2.
I've said many times the AH damage model could use more specificity and sophistication. We agree there; it's pretty basic right now.
I've said the Icons/range counters are problematic for several reasons. I've said it a few times, so you can find my comments pretty easy with a search. I also took the time to talk directly to the boss about them but we only agreed to disagree. It's his game. That's also why I don't post repetitive "icon" threads; I asked, he answered, it's done. :D
Ammo counters? Again? As I said, a nits, not lice. I think you'd see little if any effect on shooting habits if they were removed but I have no problem with removing them from aircraft that didn't have them. I just don't think in the MA it would matter in the least. It's just not that kind of place. Possibly more important for some people in scenario type operations, especially if the "quick rearm pads" (RL? :) ) were disabled. Possibly for some people in the AH2: TOD but who really knows at this stage of that operation. OTOH, in scenario play, the earlier you knock down the enemy and get an initial numbers advantage the better. So guys might be just a quick on the trigger. Who really knows.
I think the only other thing on the "laundry list" was hybrid rounds. I always guessed they did the averaging to simplify the coding back at the beginning. It'd be nice to get the specific rounds but I haven't heard any talk of that. It is, though, a very slightly double edged sword. By averaging, the "good" rounds in the belt are slightly downgraded by the "lesser" rounds. OTOH, all the "lesser" rounds are slightly upgraded by the "good" rounds. And, as I mentioned, there's the problem of tracking where the shooter is in his "belt" each time he presses the trigger so that if a hit occurs, the "right" calculations are done. I'm sure it can all be done. I assume IL2 tracks each type round and it's place in the belt? The question is will they bother and how much time will it take away from other things they feel are more important.
-
There were tracer rounds in intervals. Looks like a tracer to me.
In that clip you provided I am seeing AP/incendiary (white puff small white flash) rounds catch a zeke on fire at close range, not d800. So what? it was a fire ball anyway. Many of those hits leave nothing but a white puff with particles falling off. Like Il2. Are you comparing that to the ah hit sprite? Look at the 163 get hit with 50s
That grainy some what over exposed pic proves nothing.
I again where did I say i want realism? I said specifically I am not a realism Nazi. My replies deal with possible causes for long range gunnery in AH.
I never said tracers were "unreal" I said that I believe the visible tracers (which after testing offline are with every round) aid in long range gunnery. I am off to work right now but there plenty of additional film like the pac film you refer to.
I also said i am not an advocate on icons. Again the reference was to the possibilty that range counters help facilitate long range gunnery.
Ammo counter have a direct effect of the amount spray from planes with high rates of fire and smaller ammo loads.
When I fly Ah I am never watch the ammo couters while engaged. But whats happens after an engagement or 2 I check my ammo. This determines whether I rtb or not.
If a hurri IIc has less then 70 rounds of hisso left Id imagine he would look for a better target then just spray at long range even with the counters. But with the ammo counters gone after a few engagements he wont be sure now much ammo he has and may decide to use his ammo more wisely; ie less spray at long range.
Hybrid rounds deal with the same thing niklas mentioned in that an HE hisso shouldnt have the same ballistic charateristics as the ap. The higher velocity flatter trajectory means long rates hits are easier. Remember your science lesson?
When I get home from work I will find a link to Johsons guncam film 20851.
You can see at intervals tracer rounds (glow and smoke trail). It matches nothing we see in AH. You can also see the hits. Also remember that its hard to tell the exposure of these films but I am sure with your internet search capability you can found out. Also remember that these films are in "slow" motion but I am unsure of the Fps. I am sure you can find that as well.
I have that film on my hard drive but not enough webspace to post it.
-
Ammo counters are most usefull in some situations where you need to defend friendlies or CAP a zone and you dont want to RTB too early nor RTB without ammo for self defense. Of course, in any engangement you will try to dissengange and flee if you know only 10 rounds are left in your belts.
About smoke trails, looking at WW2 gun cam footage you will notice that these trails are much much more noticeable than the present in actual AH version, they were more like the trails in AH beta.
-
Every RAF/LW cannon shells leave a pretty fuzzy line behind. Every 50cal doesnt.
-
I think most of the gunnery issues in AH would be solved by:
1. Removing the laser rangefinders and display range only in 1k intervals. (Perhaps add an icon that tells you if the range is closing or opening, but not by how much)
2. Remove hitsprites for MG's. Reduce the hitsprite illumination over range for cannons, but perhaps leave a puff of smoke.
3. In the low-speed aspect of turnfighting add some buffeting or turbulence ... even if it can't be modelled accurately. It will add "feeling" to the game and increase the immersion factor drastically, effectively removing the "turning on rails" feel of AH. Perhaps some random wind speed fluctuation could solve this (I have never felt a wind as constant as in AH).
4. Remove the ammo counters. At least on the planes that didn't have them historically, and even those didn't display the actual rounds, but rather a simple bar system (see cockpit of 109/190 as an example). For those that didn't have counters, use the historical method of increasing the number of tracer rounds at the end of the ammo belt.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
1. Removing the laser rangefinders and display range only in 1k intervals. (Perhaps add an icon that tells you if the range is closing or opening, but not by how much)
THAT IS THE POINT, an icon that shows closure rate, but not range below 1k.
-
Watch the "Pacific Theater" clips again. There' two clips. The second one shows a line of tracer coming in from the left. Looking much like tracer in AH.
"That grainy some what over exposed pic proves nothing."
No, it proves Kewassa is mistaken. That's a smoke trail from a US tracer. There are gun cam films out there that show both smoke and no smoke from US. Could be different types of tracer material, could be lots of things. But his generalization is incorrect; some did show a smoke trail. And there's a picture of one.
You are also wrong about AH tracer being "every round". It's 1 tracer in every five rounds, unless it's large caliber, like tank rounds. All tank rounds are tracer, for example. Try taking off and shooting at the ground while in an arcing turn under G. This will spread your rounds out and you'll see that there are non-tracer rounds hitting between tracer impacts.
Yeah, my posts on Icons cover range counters as well. Always seemed counter intuitive that you get range in close when you don't need it but not farther out where in RL you could see the aircraft shape as something other than a dot.
Ammo counters have no effect on any type of plane. They can only affect the player using the plane. Clearly, in today's MA, the effect would be next to nothing. Guys that suicide dive into hangars are going to worry about RTB'ing for ammo?
Going to specific rounds from hybrids will "randomize" cannon rounds far more than most MG. The various "beltings" of cannon use rounds with enough of a difference in BC to create a noticeable difference in trajectory. This won't be true of say the .50BMG, as those various rounds are much closer in BC. So, relative to to cannon rounds, .50BMG beltings will be much flatter overall.
BTW, the Type 99 issue is a bit more detailed than has been explained in this thread. They two rounds are thought to be close to correct at the "short" ranges, with only about a 10% difference in leathality. The question involves longer ranges, where the leath may need to be upped. If this happens, it's possible some or all HE cannon (chemical energy types)may get a boost in leath at longer ranges. Not exactly what some in this thread are hoping for; the old "be careful what you ask for".
Don't forget to watch the first clip for LW smoke trails. Much heavier than what we have in AH.
Later, it's busy 'round here.
-
No, it proves Kewassa is mistaken. That's a smoke trail from a US tracer. There are gun cam films out there that show both smoke and no smoke from US. Could be different types of tracer material, could be lots of things. But his generalization is incorrect; some did show a smoke trail. And there's a picture of one.
Not really. As the different conditions of the atmosphere can bring different results. AFAIK RAF and LW tracer rounds were meant to leave a smoke trail behind, while the US .50 tracers were mostly visual tracers of magnesium/potassium flares. The .50 tracers would leave condensed trails at high alts or humid conditions, to my knowledge.
In the clip you provided, I honestly can't make out if the blurring trail is due to bad footage, over exposure, or if they are really smoke rounds. In the pic, I'm willing to bet that was pretty high up in the air.
Let's hope the real experts on this stuff can come around again and clear it up for us. If the .50 "smoking trail" is indeed something happening in only certain conditions, it would not be right to model it as a 'generic' feature for every instance. If it is a special type of tracer, still it should not should it be used as the 'standard', since we all know the AH planes arms/armament agenda almost entirely revolves around standard/normal/stock plane/armament. (unless willing to grant requests on other 'special' type of armaments and ammunitions on other planes)
...where in RL you could see the aircraft shape as something other than a dot...
In real life people missed anyway, whether they see it or not. You yourself said people misidentified ranges, mistakenly thinking that it was close range, but actually a lot out further - thus, they missed the shot.
So what's the big deal? As long as one can confirm just the closure and departure, one can wait until the target comes into sufficient range.
Oh, I know what the deal is. In truth, the whole premise of the above statement is set totally upon taking longer range gunnery as something granted. What it really means is, "in real life, you could see the planes, but in AH, if it's further out than 500yards, I can't see it very well. So, I need the range counters to confirm the range 500d for me, so I can blast them with my .50s before having to go in close and take the dangers follwing them".
Ammo counters have no effect on any type of plane. They can only affect the player using the plane. Clearly, in today's MA, the effect would be next to nothing. Guys that suicide dive into hangars are going to worry about RTB'ing for ammo?
This, is something I absolutely object to. You're saying that nobody cares about ammo anyway because every other person in the MA are just dorks. Well, in the H2H rooms where there are even more dorks, the change in ammo conditions, and the knowledge about that fact, influences the habit of gunnery on the individual pilot severely.
Besides, if the effect is next to nothing as you say, then no harm in more historicity, is there? According to your logic, the only harm it can do is to those who count every shots with the ammo counters to manage it. (or wait.. is that really a "harm"? Or is it part of the differences in pros and cons of each aircraft type?)
Don't forget to watch the first clip for LW smoke trails. Much heavier than what we have in AH.
Definately. That's what we're asking - the clean, crisp, grey laser-line has to go. Replace it with the blurry smoke trail.
-
AH is a lot of fun.
-
umm in the second half of that pac clip thats not a steady stream of tracers and it matchesnothing in ah. All the visible rounds appear to be coming from 1 gun. Plus the quality of the film is poor with the contrast of the round against the black terrain it l make the round stand out.
This particular pilot could of had a personal preference as to how tracers were loaded. You certainly see other strikes from rounds with no tracer.
But even so their visible in enhanced by the quality of the clip and the slow fps of the film. Even so they are no where as visible as AH. Also both parts of that pac clip show close range gunnery.
Look at the il2 pi I posted and you can see the "tracer" of the 50s they match up way better with the films you provided then AH does.
Again watch the 163 video.
(http://prod.bsis.bellsouth.net/coDataImages/p/Groups/70/70408/folders/68000/436021IL200003.jpg)
Yes lw smoke trails were more visible then 50s, so were their hit sprites. LW mine rounds had a much bigger sprite then what ah has now as well. But long range gunnery isnt a problem with lw planes.
As kweassa says that pic may or may not show smoke. It could just be over exposure with the burning magnesium/potassium leaving a trail on the film. You dont know any more then we do.
I just tested the tracer interval using the .dot target command and the tracer interval in 1 in 5 on every gun. So a jug firing 8 50s has 680 rounds of tracers (max ammo load of a d30 8*425 =3400/5=680).
Even in the clips you provide as evidence of ? (actually I dunno what you are trying to prove) certainly dont show every gun firing every 5 rounds as tracer. Even the tracer you do see arent as visible and look nothing like AH.
I am am not an advocate of no icons. I would prefer a type icon that fades in at range. You could still judge closure and id plane type.
I covered ammo counters 15 times.
Going to specific rounds from hybrids will "randomize" cannon rounds far more than most MG. The various "beltings" of cannon use rounds with enough of a difference in BC to create a noticeable difference in trajectory. This won't be true of say the .50BMG, as those various rounds are much closer in BC. So, relative to to cannon rounds, .50BMG beltings will be much flatter overall
Well yeah. The particular point about hybrid round in almost exclusively related to cannon. In particular the Hisso. But certainly the variations in the lw cannon belting should have an "effect"as well.
Well the type 99 issue is a curious one in that if the mk1 looses 40% of its lethality at 180 yrds then what about the mgff? its basically the same round. I never take the mgff on the a5 because for the most part the mgff is useless.
In another post Naudet mentions a couple of lw pilots who claim to have shot down planes at 1000yrds or so with 7 mm and mgff
In "JG26 Topguns of the LW", a wingman of A. Galland is mentioned. He killed 5 or 7 enemies while flying as Gallands wingman, all kills were high deflection shoots up to 1000 meters (~1100yrd)! And this with MG17 and MG FF, anyway to do that in AH?? NO!
Same goes for a one-handed 109 Pilot, who had to use longrange defletion shots to kill, cause he couldnt fly so well with one arm in Aircombat, he also regulary score beyond 500 meters (~560yrd).
I dont necessarily believe that but even if it was real it couldnt happen in ah. If at 180 yrds an mgff looses 40% of its lethality what happens at 1k?
I read another quote by a us p51 pilot that witnessed another p51 get shot down in a zoom climb by a 109 estimated at 800m (Fw. Mueller I believe was the lw pilot credted). I can post similiar Russian claims with shvaks.
I dont deny long range gunnery is possible but I dont think it was as easy as in the case in ah for the reason I listed. If none of those things I listed contribute to long range gunnery then why in a game with similiar "believable ballistics" is it not repeated?
The idea the Ah'rs are more skilled doesnt play either. Lots of guys flying il2 have much time in flight sims and in il2 as Ah'rs.
-
Originally posted by Batz
Well yeah. The particular point about hybrid round in almost exclusively related to cannon. In particular the Hisso. But certainly the variations in the lw cannon belting should have an "effect"as well.
It was the Luftwaffe guns which had a marked ballistic difference depending on the ammo - the Hispano's HEI and SAPI were very similar.
Well the type 99 issue is a curious one in that if the mk1 looses 40% of its lethality at 180 yrds then what about the mgff? its basically the same round. I never take the mgff on the a5 because for the most part the mgff is useless.
The cannon shells may lose 40% of their velocity, but that is not the same as 40% of their lethality, which would only reduce gradually with distance (much less than for a KE round like the .50).
Tony Williams
-
Blurring trail? Jeez. There's photographic proof of a trail. There's guncam films out there that show similar.
You clearly have not idea what I've said about ranges and icons. Do a search, because you're arguing with yourself, not me.
And if you've paid attention in this thread, I've said a few times that it's fine with me if ammo counters are removed from planes that don't have them. I don't care a bit. However, if you think MA play will change much because of it, IMO you're severely deluding yourself. The vast majority of the MA clientele is not the "fly to live" contingent and even some of the "fly to live" will stay till the last bullet is gone. In short, ammo counters just aren't important in this game environment. IMO (and HT's too, I guess).
Blurry smoke only in the historically correct LW aircraft, of course. I wouldn't want that trash blocking my view. :D
Not a steady stream? LOL! It's almost an unbroken line of light. See what you want to see, or blame it on the film. I guess. Kinda like "all AH rounds are tracer, 'cuz I see what I want to see".
Yeah, we have a preference too... you can always turn 'em off. Guess you want to be able to load the other guys belt for him here too though...........
Yeah, you covered ammo counters, gave your opinion and I gave mine. You think yours is more correct, I think mine is more correct. Whoop de doo. I hope they do it and then we can all see what actual effect it has n the MA.
Tony's right about Hispano and LW cannon BC. If you guys get what you want, the LW rounds will suffer more than the Hispano from varying trajectory for two reasons. The LW rounds have greater differences in BC between types and they use what, 3 types instead of two? Also the LW beltings are more "mixed" so you'll get more shot to shot variance. Don't bother me a bit either way. The question apparently is whether or not it's worth the coding work/time for such a marginal game aspect that's of interest to only a small minority who will, in any event, complain about it as well after it's done.
-
Hi Toad,
>Tony's right about Hispano and LW cannon BC. If you guys get what you want, the LW rounds will suffer more than the Hispano from varying trajectory for two reasons.
Actually, the effect of dispersion is larger than that of trajectory difference out to a fairly long range.
If you'd compare wing guns (typical Allied installations) and centreline guns (typical Luftwaffe installations), you'd probably find that the former's random dispersion is indeed larger than the latter's systematic trajectory difference out to extreme ranges (where the Luftwaffe shells would self-destruct anyway).
And for a perspective: Something I didn't take into account in my above discussion of long range fire is the effect of firing beyond harmonization range. The diverging streams of fire are worse than ballistically caused trajectory differences, too.
>The LW rounds have greater differences in BC between types and they use what, 3 types instead of two? Also the LW beltings are more "mixed" so you'll get more shot to shot variance.
The belting may have been mixed, but they were matched to mix. The differences in muzzle velocity are carefully selected to give the rounds a closely similar trajectory within the weapon's effective range. That's why the ballistically superior armour piercing round for example has a lower muzzle velocity than the inferior mine shell.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
I've spoken to Pyro before, and Toad is correct. AH models one (1) tracer for every five (5) rounds.
Batz, for some reason, you have convinced yourself that IL2 is correct and AH is wrong. And then are trying to use IL2 as "proof". Thats kind of a circular arguement, because first you have to prove that IL2 is correct.
If IL2 was so correct, why was it changed in IL2FB and from what I've been told is much more "AH like" in gunnery?
The biggest issue in long range gunnery is ICONS. Take them away, and its a moot point. But without ICONS its unrealistically hard and most people can't play successfully with todays computer limitations.
-
Toad re watch that pac you can count every tracer. Nothing like ah. How come on the site you linked or the pic you posted none of it resembles AH? I have plenty of guncom footage on my harddrive. Not 1 looks like AH. Go to the main page of the site you linked. The "Tipperary" collection has 50 strikes with no tracer.
Tony isnt the Hisso Sapi round heavier then the HE? Wouldnt over 1000 yards that impact it velocity?
I mentioned the type 99 mk 1 because apparently theres issues related to it in AH. Brady talked to pyro and I believe thats what he related back on this thread.
Verm what you talkining about? Il2 gunnery hasnt changed except for some tweaking of the dm. Read whats actually written. The comparison isnt made to say ah is wrong or Il2 right. The question is about long range gunnery Toad says ballistics and player skill are the cause (atleast I think). I say that its the visual aids that allow it.
Read what I said about icons. I never suggested "no icons".
The comparison to Il2 is just to show that 2 games with similiar ballistics can have different results. DM is a huge part but so is "How well you aim". Still the things I mentioned have a direct effect on "how well you aim".
I said exactly the same thing "Il2 ballistic are very much like ah. Dont believe me? Go read it for yourself. The issue is range.
Also read what Brady said about his talk with pyro on the type 99 mk 1. Obviously AH has it "wrong" there. I remeber pre 1.04 folks touting the real fm in AH. The same guys touted the post 1.04 fm after the fix. Some guys say wbs is real etc. Ah is no more real then the rest. But Il2 and AH have similiar "believable" ballistics that make it easy to compare. Beyond that who knows which is "real".
-
Batz, for some reason, you have convinced yourself that IL2 is correct and AH is wrong. And then are trying to use IL2 as "proof". Thats kind of a circular arguement, because first you have to prove that IL2 is correct.
If IL2 was so correct, why was it changed in IL2FB and from what I've been told is much more "AH like" in gunnery?
There sure are many things wrong with IL2/FB, just like any game. But still some points in that game are far superior to AH, and the "AH is still the most realistic of them all, and no other game comes close - we don't need to learn from anybody else, they need to learn from us. If anyone is different from us, they're wrong" type of pride is simply plain bullshi* now. That used to be true, but not anymore.
We're not using IL-2 as proof. We're simply offering a comparison that seems to make AH fans(hey, I'm one of them. I still like AH better than IL2/FB) sour again and again.
IL2/FB - they use the same ballistics data around, they don't neuter their rounds aritificially, they model every rounds, they model even the different trajectories in the round types - armour piercing, incendiary, high explosive and tracer. They model in wind and turbulence(which doesn't seem to bring out any strange or fishy results), flutter effect, different heat conditions and have a damage model that depicts almost every aspect of the engine - you can be hit in the oil line, radiator, supercharger, piston, air intake, get the magnetos busted and throttle control stuck.
Unless the 1C crew are using ballistics data that is wildly different from what HTC is using(could be a possibility.. how many sets of wildly different ballistics data are there, anyway?), they have created something that has all the initial factors and ballistics data AH has, and yet offer a different gunnery situation.
Using same ballistics, but with far more factors that would effect gunnery, and a more sophisticated DM, this game brings out a gunnery which pretty much matches the historical accounts as we know. Ofcourse, it is a little easier in IL-2/FB than real life too - people do get 'long range' shots in - but the whole definition of "long range" or "lucky shot", is different. Sometimes I manage to dig in a 400~500meter MK108 shot in against large targets like bombers. I can hit a plane out at about 200~250m with nose-armed guns(wing armed guns are far more difficult, and the difference between nose-armed weapons and wing-armed weapons are very much pronounced in IL2/FB).
The changes from Il2 to FB is mostly about FM, and so is the latest 1.1b version of FB. The gunnery, is, and have always been much same.
For some reason, Batz is convinced? Yes, so am I.
Those are all reasonable, and pretty damn good reasons the way I see it. A gunnery that doesn't use any artificial neutering, uses icons, models ballistics as data, and yet, still 'realistic' - wouldn't that convince you?
-
Henning,
Would you happen to have the BC's on the various LW 20mm rounds? While I've been assured by some that they are readily available, I've yet to find them and the two folks I've talked to that modeled them in games said they had to back them in by solving the ballistic formula for that using muzzle vel, weight and trajectory.
Tony, do you have them? If so would you share?
Centerline cannon are primarily on the 109's as far as fighters go, correct?
Nothing like AH? Yer right... there is MORE light leading to the target in the film than in AH. AH does have more smoke though, which just clouds things up. That flick is like Luke's light saber pointing out the target.
I think what Pyro told Brady about the Type 99 is that it's pretty darn close at the short ranges but that velocity may have too big a role in the "longer" ranges. Whatever that is.
So as far as all the "factors", a few are valid, a couple are debatable and one or two are not even worth talking about.
Bank on this thouh. It's the way HT wants it and he's a real strong-minded fellow.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Centerline cannon are primarily on the 109's as far as fighters go, correct?
109's, 110's, La5/7, Yak9's, Ki61, P38, Ta152 all have centerline mounted cannon(s).
P40B, Zekes, C202/205 have centerline mounted mg's, but no cannon.
Might have missed some.
-
Yeah, but he's talking about how they downloaded the LW rounds with the better BC to give them a closer trajectory to the ones with a worse BC.
I'd love to plot them all out and see how they compare and where trajectories diverge.
-
109s, 110's then (mg151)
Ta152 (mk108)
190's if you consider wingroot monts as centerline. (mg151)
Your "project" sounds very interesting :)
-
Well 110 really wasn't much of a fighter except in this game. ;)
Dunno about 190; I'm not sure if the purists would rule that as a CL mount or not.
Yeah, I think it'd be interesting. But like I said, I've only ever heard of "backed in BC's", no original source data. And those I've heard of won't share. :)
-
Bank on this though. It's the way HT wants it and he's a real strong-minded fellow.
But I also believe HT is firm and fair. I'm hoping sooner or later, HT will make an important decision.
In terms of gameplay, many people worried when the IL-2 Demo came out, that when the gunnery was like that in the real game, everybody was going to be frustrated. Well, after it came out, frustration was there no doubt, but it was short. After seeing how the gunnery aspect worked out, people became very convinced and supportive of it.
I'm very convinced the suggested changes, will be benevolent for AH in the ultimate sense. For one thing, at least people won't be whining about gun performances, or N1K2s or Spits anymore.
-
Hi Toad,
>Would you happen to have the BC's on the various LW 20mm rounds?
Maybe it's possible to calculate the coefficients from the following trajectory diagrams?
http://www.x-plane.org/users/hohun/weapons/he_traj.jpg
http://www.x-plane.org/users/hohun/weapons/mine_traj.jpg
>Centerline cannon are primarily on the 109's as far as fighters go, correct?
Both with regard to convergence and with regard to dispersion, I'd include the Fw 190 wing root cannon in that category, too.
I've reached the conclusion that convergence/divergence is the ultimate range limiter.
300 yards was a commonly used convergence range on USAAF fighters. This equates to a 5 mil trajectory angle, which with a 6 mil dispersion leaves only very few strikes on the central vertical of the gunsight at long range. That shows very clearly that they had abandoned hope on killing anything beyond 600 yards.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hohun or Tony,
What about the 'tracer smoke'? Did the US .50 cals leave smoke trails like LW or RAF cannons? If they did, how is it different from the LW/RAF cannons?
What did the US think about tracers in general? What about the RAF or the LW? I'm very curious of this.
-
Hi Kweassa,
>What did the US think about tracers in general? What about the RAF or the LW? I'm very curious of this.
From what I've read about US experience, tracers were considered deceptive. I don't think that's due to the different trajectory, but rather due to the difficulty of seeing where the tracer stream actually goes in three dimensions. ("Did I miss long or short?")
I've not read anything about the RAF experience, but it's telling that they introduced a rather advanced reflector sight with range compensation just before WW2, which might indicate an emphasis on aiming by the sight as for the Americans. The "De Wilde" round is also interesting since it seems to have been very popular with the pilots - apparently, the bright flash it gave when impacting the target, visibly signalling a hit, was no small factor in that. (Which implies that tracers alone weren't that useful.)
With regard to the German experience, both von Richthofen and Udet advocated aiming by the sight in WW1. I don't know about WW2, but apparently the Luftwaffe stressed deflection shooting using the gun sight, and trained the pilots for it.
By the way, the function of the British range-compensated sight was explained to Milch on a pre-war visit of an RAF airfield by Dowding himself. That the Luftwaffe didn't duplicate the system shows that they didn't consider trajectory curvature an issue.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
What about the 'trail' itself?
If there was a smoke trail left behind by US .50s, wouldn't that provide some type of relative, general info on whether they are shooting "longer"(smoke travels over the target) or "shorter"(smoke travels under the target)?
Would it be safe to assume that an absence of the smoke trails had in part, something to do with it? Or, did the .50s leave a smoking trail behind? Were US tracers supposed to do that?
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
For one thing, at least people won't be whining about gun performances, or N1K2s or Spits anymore.
Now THAT really did make me laugh out loud. If there's one constant on this BBS.......
Henning, yep, I think I can back it in from there. It has the weight, the velocity and (after I translate it) I think I can figure out the sight in range and the trajectory. It may come out a few hundreths off, but it would be close. When I get some time, I'll take a shot at it. Thanks.
So, you'd have to add the AH Convergence factor. We can set individual pairs of guns out to 600 yards. ;)
Be an interesting test for HT to turn tracer off for two months then turn it back on for two months and compare hit percentage averages in the second month of each test. I'd speculate that people would adapt to "no tracer" and shoot about as well in AH without it and do their shooting at about the same ranges. I've tried tracer and no tracer and after intial periods of adjustment I shoot about the same. You can see the target more clearly without them.
-
Originally posted by Batz
Toad re watch that pac you can count every tracer.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_100_1060867053.jpg)
One..... two......
-
You said
It's almost an unbroken line of light
I replied
Toad re watch that pac you can count every tracer.
As opposed to an "unbroken line of light".
"Nothing like ah" means it looks nothing like AH. Those AH bright orange tennis balls that ah uses for tracers are easily used to aim with. In AH I dont use a gunsite and depending on the plane no tracers.
First the target is close, second the bright tracer is enhanced against the black terrain.
Look at AH 6 foot like sabre tracer. Then watch all the films and you will none of it looks like that. The go back and look at the Il2 50 tracer pic on the other page of this thread.
Take that pac pic in its totality and it clearly is "not like ah".
Then go look at the 50 cal ah pic on the other page of this thread and you see them easily out beyond 600 yrds.
Then go watch the main page film on the link you posted and see many 50 strikes with no visible tracer.
Again you jump on a specific issue when clearly I said numerous times that theres a combination of "issues" that contribute to ah longer effective kill range.
You keep mentioning HT but as I said I dont care what he does. My point is simply related to long range gunnery not a cry for change. I simply dont care.
The visual aids in ah aid long range gunnery. The simple dm makes long range kills easier. In a game with similiar ballistics minus the visual aids and a more complex dm the results are different.
Long range hits are possible in the other but more rare. This being the case you cant really assume that Ahrs have more "skillz". Theres as many playing the others any night as are playing ah.
-
Hi Kweassa,
>If there was a smoke trail left behind by US .50s, wouldn't that provide some type of relative, general info on whether they are shooting "longer"(smoke travels over the target) or "shorter"(smoke travels under the target)?
Well, I've never found any veteran commenting on the smoke trail :-) The absence of comments makes me speculate that smoke - as so often - merely was the inevitable byproduct of fire.
From a visual perspective, I'd say if the tracers themselves weren't good enough, their smoke trails weren't any better.
We're talking about smoke from a few grams of chemicals here, distributed over maybe a kilometer length. Probably the only way to see it at all was to look through the "cloud" length-wise, and even then the tracer was still visible at the end, proving it was much more intense than the smoke.
(The absence of comments on smoke trails extends to the target side, too.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Batz,
>Look at AH 6 foot like sabre tracer. Then watch all the films and you will none of it looks like that.
The problem with crossing tracers is that in real life, you perceive them as bright spots moving smoothly and quickly. (This is an illusion created by the marvellous brain evolution provided you with, but it's very realistic :-)
If you have a computer screen, normal frame rates would make such a small bright spot appear to stutter its way across the screen. A cinematographic frame would have the tracers recorded as dimmer extended line of even brightness because it moved across the frame during the exposure time.
The Aces High tracer with the faded ends looks like a 4 foot light sabre that moved 2 feet during the exposure time :-) Probably the result of some compromises!
I'd bet it looks better from behind the guns, though :-)
(And a philosopical aside: How realistic can "photorealism" be when our brains don't work like cine cameras at all? :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Bias is present in everyone's view. The line of tracer coming in from the left side of the "shooter" in that second clip looks a lot like the line of tracer I get when I shoot in AH. Just tried to snap shot it in the DA but it really has to be on film to compare. Anyway, YMMV. Looks pretty close to me.
And what I said about your combination of issues is that IMO some are clearly valid, like unnecessary range counters where you don't need it, some are somewhat valid like the "hybrid round" (after all, as HoHun said, they fiddled with velocity to get the various rounds to "group" together so it shouldn't be that much of a factor and as Tony said the Hispano round weights and BC's are closer than the LW ones so that ameliorates it a bit as well) and some don't take into account the play style in the MA and are not really a factor at all (go ahead, guess).
Feel free to differ in your opinion.
Played around with tracer on/off tonite a while in the DA. It may just be me but I seem to shoot about as well one way as the other. I take the same shots too. Be interesting to run a test on that with "average" shooters and see what happens.
Jump to specific issues? No, I reply to you and you reply to me and all the issues eventually get discussed. That's sort of how discussions work.
The last mention of HT is referenced to Kweassa, not you. Kweassa may hope for some things, but the recent quote of HT by Westy should pretty well cure him of all hope. ;) (In General Discussion)
"The visual aids in ah aid long range gunnery."
No kidding. That's why they're in there.
Now, some, like range counters are overdone. Some, like tracer or hybrid rounds are a factor but the question is just how big a factor. Others don't have much to do with it.
But at the bottom of it all is the fact that no one can deny that the rounds easily go past 1k with plenty of energy to do damage.
:D
Put that in to make your morning.
-
Just as much no one was much worried of getting shot down over 400, 500 meters distance in real life, and such ballistics were never even a considerable issue to each forces of the war..
By the way, the function of the British range-compensated sight was explained to Milch on a pre-war visit of an RAF airfield by Dowding himself. That the Luftwaffe didn't duplicate the system shows that they didn't consider trajectory curvature an issue. - Hohun
..
No kidding. That's why they're in there.
And that's why this, otherwise a terrific game, always leaves a part of its customers in discontent. All the "bullshi*" claims, and fights, disruption between "Allied fan-boys" and "LuftWhiners", people whining about Nikis and Spits.. what's the common factor?
The gunnery factor. Like the one I met just yesterday, got puckered by a .50 round at 900 yards on my FE. Got curious, so I asked the shooter.. 820yards on his FE, he confirms. In a slow-wise jink too..
..
Anyhow, I think all things that needs to be said have been already said. Btw, where is this "quite" in the General Discussions? I can't seem to find it...
Anyhow, I think we can let the matters lie until the next claim comes up on how AH gunnery is either bullshi* or problematic, which I guarantee, as long as such ahistoric kills occur so often, will come up again.
-
HT quotes:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=941314#post941314
Originally posted by Kweassa
Like the one I met just yesterday, got puckered by a .50 round at 900 yards on my FE. Got curious, so I asked the shooter.. 820yards on his FE, he confirms. In a slow-wise jink too....
... as long as such ahistoric kills occur so often, will come up again.
Hit or shot down? (What's "puckered"?) Previous damage or undamaged? First ping(s) or "last straws"?
It's only a very small group that even mentions it. I think that's the underlying theme of HT's remarks.
-
Previously undamaged.
He shot at me couple of times at 500~600, but missed, he stopped shooting, and I pulled away to 900 on my FE. Then the tracers started flying again - typical desperation spray.
Disgusted, I go into a slow jink, since the guy behind was a Spit9, and I was a 109G-2.. I'm not a speed demon, so can't afford to lose E.
Then, one audible hit, and one elevator and fuel punctured, guy chased me down until fuel ran dry and shot me down.
..
On the quotes..
Gee, how's he gonna make an exciting, dogfighting oriented game when people don't have to go in close to fight anyone?
-
So then presumably you got hit with 2 20mm rounds at ~850 yards. How many did he shoot?
One of these caused a fuel leak that eventually led to you running out of gas and being killed at much shorter range, right?
Will a 20mm round go 850 yards?
If it hits a fuel tank, will it probably make it leak?
:D
From those quotes it looks like HT made the decision though, doesn't it?
That's why I quit discussing Icons/Range with him. Decision's made. Hope I didn't dash your hopes. ;)
-
Let's try and stay at the 'frequentness' line. You're drifting to the 'possibility' line again.
Besides, he wasn't a n00b, Toad. One of those better pilots in the MA. Thus, it is true his gunner made a difference. The closest he came near me was about 550. He gave a few shots, thought he could close the gap more, but that didn't happen. Then, as I pulled further, 900 on my FE, he started shooting, and within three tracers passing by he scored a hit.
So, what do you think the odds are if he attempted to just fire away at 600?
..
The real point I want to emphasize, as always, is the 'frequentness'.
What would you do when you see a bogey teensey bit faster than your P-51, and slowly furthering the distance at 500 yards?
Will you:
a) Give up, since it would be a waste of ammo
b) Give a burst, but don't really expect to be able to hit him, since he's so "far away"
c) Give a burst, knowing you can kill him, without too much waste of ammo
..
I'd bet you'd choose (c). Wouldn't you?
..
How about this? Let's cut the crap and go straight to the point. Two questions:
1) Are you prepared to deny the claimed fact that shooting over 300 meters' range in real life, was ineffective and undesirable?
2) Are you prepared to deny the fact that kills over 300~400 yards is frequent in AH, and ranges upto 400~500 yards are almost a confirmed 'kill range' for planes armed with .50s and Hispanos?
-
Let's try and stay at the 'frequentness' line. You're drifting to the 'possibility' line again.
LOL! Yeah, let's stick with the only possible argument you have, no matter how "unprovable" it is. You sure don't want to get into "possibility" here because then you have no argument at all. It's CLEARLY possible. Even you have to admit that!
Anyway, Sure, I'll play another round! Why not!
500 yards and slowly opening? I will absolutely give him a "good burst" for several reasons.
1. Yes, I can hit at 500 yards in AH, ESPECIALLY on someone that is not making any evasives (ie: dead straight) or only maneuvering slightly. These guys are just fooling themselves that they're getting away; don't evade, you'll die. The game is set up that way. Now, out around 700-800, light evasives will protect you; time of flight gets long enough.
3. I can hit with or without tracer on at that range (500) and I'm pretty sure I don't need range either, but I can't turn that off.
3. Using .50's, I have no hybrid rounds to worry about to any extent.
4. Don't need to worry about hit flashes either. In this situation, I just hold where I think I'll hit, hold the trigger down and slowly increase lead during the burst. Best way to get some hits, tracer on or off.
Without ammo counters, I'd shoot anyway, until the guns went dry.
Then I'd either auger for a new plane or possibly rtb; but I don't play for score. I'd only rtb to deny someone a kill, like if the extender had pinged me, I wouldn't auger, I'd rtb. See, the fights and the kills are the "thing" for me. I hate to admit it, but I don't think I'm actually reliving those thrilling days of yesteryear when I play.
5. There's always a chance the guy will turn around an fight OR he'll do a big E burning evasive that will allow me to close the gap. I'll waste some ammo on that chance. I like the fights, not the chases.
Now, you're going to make the case that in WW2 REAL LIFE this just didn't happen. I'll simply point out that those guys didn't have range finders that read down to the yard with 0% chance of error. If they had and the yardage was shown on their guncam film, then you'd have an unimpeachable case for your argument because you'd KNOW what range they shot at then. But, as it is, you basically have anecdotal information on kill ranges, ie: "I opened fire about 200 yards". Now, do you swear by anecdotal pilot information on aircraft performance? Would you support anecdotal sources being used to program IL2's aircraft performance?
1) Are you prepared to deny the claimed fact that shooting over 300 meters' range in real life, was ineffective and undesirable?
I'd say shooting over 300 meters in WW2 aerial combat was less effective than it is here and it was most certainly undesirable to miss due to the RL constraints on the mission. IE: they couldn't land at a field, rearm and be back in the fight in 15 minutes except in "Battle of Britain" type situations.
2) Are you prepared to deny the fact that kills over 300~400 yards is frequent in AH, and ranges upto 400~500 yards are almost a confirmed 'kill range' for planes armed with .50s and Hispanos?
Yep, 300-400 yard kills are frequent in AH. 400-5000 are relatively frequent for most airplanes, regardless of gun set.
Now, your turn.
Are you prepared to deny the fact that all of these rounds will easily travel farther than 600 yards with more than enough kinetic and/or chemical energy to damage an aluminum aircraft?
Are you prepared to deny the fact that HT has made his intent clear regarding fun vs realism?
Are you prepared to deny the fact that HT has chosen fun over realism?
Lastly, despite your long campaign, are you prepared to deny the fact that it's pretty clear that HT isn't going to make the changes you desire? Are you prepared to deny the fact that if it's 300 yard kills you desire, you'd best just play IL2?
:D
-
I think the whole discussion is mute. HTC have already told us they have improved the gunnery/Damage model for AH2.
If I know HTC I know one thing, they have a habit of saying nothing about any intended change until it happens. We see bickering Threads on the subjects which continue with lots of unecessary emotional outbursts until the very day AH changes it.
For instance the F4U overuse problem, We all complained and all the supposed 'in the know' types told us we were whining and HTC wouldnt change it etc. Then suddenly it was changed. People seemed to be satisfied with the new setup, the complaints ceased, and funnily enough so did those same 'in the know' bull* artists claims. :)
Thats the whole point and we should all learn to cope with the silence. HTC unfortunately gives very little if anything away about their intentions.We all put our ideas or gripes down in this BB and some are listened to while others are disgarded as unecessary by HTC. If your gripe was a genuine one 9 times out of 10 it actually appears in the next patch as a fix. The P38 tail, the 190 engine bug, the angle of the rockets for Wr21 being raised, changes to objects hardness, armour model for the ground vehicles, the call for more bombers in a formation, etc etc. HTC does fix things which people complain of but we just have to wait until the patch to see if they agree.
In the meantime the bickering on the subject continues
Personally I think a lot of it could be stopped by a few words given out by HTC, and im often quite bemused as to why they dont say a few words. Maybe they have learned that you cant always deliver in the programme exactly what you would like to. Sometimes the model falls short in an area. Well rather than it appear a failed attempt by promising it would be added and not delivering, its better to quietly TRY to fix it, then if successfull, ANNOUNCE it. Its just better practice to do it that way.
I have a feeling HTC agrees with kweassa on some levels and are no doubt hoping their next damage model will reflect real life even more closely. Perhaps this will include the lowering of lethality of guns at long ranges? who knows? We will find out when AH2 arrives.
In the meantime lets not attack kweassa for saying what we all know is quite true. The fact that gunnery in aircombat was a lot more difficult than it is at present in this GAME. We can choose to reflect real life and make it exceptionally hard, possibly alienating half of their player base OR they can seek a compromise, where its still FUN to try to shoot each other but the model APPEARS to act in a way that seems real. HTC have a hard ballance to atttain. It must be a huge pain in the bellybutton :) lol
well thats all i can say about it oh and batz makes a fine point above too, sorry only read a portion of entire thread and read you late. Good points on the DM and visual aids. I think your dead right there.
-
The F4U-1C? Yeah, it was whining. People made their choice of planes and other people didn't like their choice. So they cried about it.
HT did change it. But the complaints didn't cease.. oh no. They just "changed planes". Then people went on to cry about Spits, Niks and La7s. They're still crying about those. See HT do anything about that? :D
They are looking at damage and leathality. They've said that. The haven't said a word about changing "aiming aids" AFAIK. HT has said he isn't changing ballistics; seems like I read that in some thread recently.
-
Originally posted by Toad
The F4U-1C? Yeah, it was whining. People made their choice of planes and other people didn't like their choice. So they cried about it.
HT did change it. But the complaints didn't cease.. oh no. They just "changed planes". Then people went on to cry about Spits, Niks and La7s. They're still crying about those. See HT do anything about that? :D
They are looking at damage and leathality. They've said that. The haven't said a word about changing "aiming aids" AFAIK. HT has said he isn't changing ballistics; seems like I read that in some thread recently.
well toad that all points to me that HTC are willing to 1) try things to see if they work (the f4u perking) and 2) they are currently working on all aspects of the model (due simply to the upgrading of the modelling of damage)
The fact they are not changing ballistics does not mean they are not changing they way those rounds 'impact' a target.
toad dont get me wrong here but you seem annoyed at me saying what i said above. I didnt intend to annoy anyone, but to simply point out WE dont know what HTC is doing at the moment.
for all we know they could be intending to once again listen to the 'whining' as you put it, and changing some aircraft to perk rides. I for one wouldnt mind seeing a short testing period of a few tours to see what happens when the late models are perked. Is it really going to kill us to try things out? people seem far too 'wound-up' to me in here. Like its some sort of contest to see who can guess right what HTC is up to. HTC wont change that, they wont change this, all the time coming from people who simply dont know what HTC wil do.
If ANYONE wants to say something in here, I say let them say it, sure maybe i dont agree or maybe i do, I'll let them know:D but im not about to start calling them names in order to attempt to embarrass/annoy them enough to make them leave in disgust.
HTC can make up their minds about the threads. I personally hope we do notice something improved about the gunnery/damage model. I know its sacralidge to say it but i hope we get somthing similar to 'IL2 forgotten battles'.Whether I could prove IL2 FB was more accurate or not isnt the point. IT is that the IL2FB model 'feels' more realistic and 'appears' more, only in my point of veiw admittedly!, realistic. so shoot me but it does
AH however is the place I would choose to play online. Its simply a far superior arena to play such games compared to IL2 or others. The answer is hoping AH will adopt a similar DM or even a superior one to IL2 FB. Im not sure kweassa wants exactly the same as me but asking to see a model reflect ACTUAL combat reports etc isnt an attack on AH as a game. It doesnt mean people think there are better games to play and we should all berate HTC for not doing as good. They simply take the best bits of various games,the times where they enjoy themselves and notice what it is about the game they like, bits they had enjoyed the most and hope HTC will match or better with the update. Sheesh is this a crime?
-
Namecalling? Where?
-
Yes it is a "crime" hazed. When thats the only type of post a person does.
HiTech
-
toad i was just refering to the 'trend' of the BB's, not you in particular, I guess the quoteing made it appear i meant just you but i didnt. I meant the way some posts turn into witch hunts rather than just discussing things.most people rather than continue the thread decide to give up when things like 'whiner' or whatever other name is given to them puts them off as an adult in a discussion
Hitech I have no idea what you mean here. I suggest you re-read what i posted if you think that last paragraph was in any way an attack on AH and im beginning to think you arent reading any of my posts, just jumping in and accusing me of crap i have in no way done.
Im dumbfounded by your reply yet again. what are you saying, that all i ever do is post a 'TYPE' of thread?
I havent said anything but that i appreciate a game! How is this any diferent from saying i liked combat flight simulator or their finest hour or any other game out there which WE ALL liked and got into flight-sims because of? im sure even you guys at HTC must have favourites?? this is getting rediculous. I feel like quiting on principle only a games BB isnt worth getting worked up over. truelly amazed
-
Which brings an interesting point up. Why do game makers come up with new names for new games instead of remarket old and famous games like "finest hour" battle of brittain. They should remake some of the old classic games as that would draw a good audiance of loyal game fans. If someone made a Strike Commander 03 or 04 or a Finest Hour 04 or Aces of the Pacific 04, it would sure catch my interest.
Just my opinion.
-
Hazed do us both a favor, take a 1 month sevatical from our bbs.
HiTech
-
Actually thats sabbatical not sevatical.
:D
Just a friendly pointer,
coffee
-
Originally posted by hitech
Hazed do us both a favor, take a 1 month sevatical from our bbs.
HiTech
Mr. Addink, I am bewildered by your reply. Hazed actually gave you and your team high praise in those posts, saying that although you're not forthcoming with information you actually listen to the whishes of your customers and if it is found appropriate you do something about it. Yet you rebuke him and basically tell him he's not welcome on the BBS. I don't know what "whiners" have done to you in the past, but it must have been cruel and unusual for you to alienate parts of your clientele like this.
One thing I have been thinking about, and I'm going to take this opportunity to tell you about, is the reoccurring old "whines" from new players. You and other members of your team have answered a lot of questions on this BBS, but the answers get lost in the large backwater of old threads. Why not get Skuzzy to dig up all the questions and answers and put them in a sticky thread in each section of the BBS? You can call them "Read this before you whine!". It could save both you and new players a lot of aggravation. Just a suggestion.
-
I have a theory on why the gunnery model is easier in this game than it was in real life.
Here goes: If it were made as hard as RL to hit planes, many new folk who tried the game would simply give up because they would rarely meet w/ success. This includes some of the current "roster" of people who fly regularly(they may have quit as noobs). I mean, how much fun would it be for noobs if it took them a month to get their first kill? I don't want to see gunnery get any more difficult. I understand the opinions here of those that disagree w/ me, but there is a point where it goes from challenging to just plain too hard.
If the damage model changes, so be it... but I have a hard enough time hitting bad guys as it is, so I'm hoping gunnery changes not at all.
-
Steve, IMO, you are wrong, people will accomodate to difficulties with time, no more then two weeks. Or do we want a more relaxed flight model to make us "happier"?
Toad, about
"Are you prepared to deny the fact that HT has chosen fun over realism?"
Does that mean realism cant be fun? Does that mean "interest" into a high realism game cant generate fun? If so, we better ask for sidewinders and proton torpedoes to make the MA funnier.
-
Well, I don't know about that. You guys have had years to accomodate to the fact that you can be killed at ~600 yards and more in AH if you don't maneuver and it still seems to be a problem with yas. :D
As for HT and the complex relationship between fun and realism, I think you'd better ask him. I'm not the one making the decisions. I do think the quotes Westy put up show his overall view though.
-
Are you prepared to deny the fact that HT has made his intent clear regarding fun vs realism?
Are you prepared to deny the fact that HT has chosen fun over realism
I don't deny any of them. But I dare claim those two decisions, over time, is gonna prove to be the bane of AH if it keeps up.
After all, everything is now so confusing.
All this gunnery issue, and talks about long/ahistoric shooting ranges and stuff revolved around the concept of 'realism' and how it may be depicted in a 'game'.
Now, you're saying that the result of this gunnery where almost every case of shooting down is a result of guns fired over four~five football fields, is a from of a decision that chose "fun" over "realism"?
Then why in the world can't we just neuter the gunnery to match historic accounts, since practically the consideration on realism is now effectively null and void? Who needs charts or realistic performance of planes and ordnance anyway? Wouldn't a hot, ACM oriented game be more "fun", than planes armed with lasers sniping off everything they see at 400 meters?
..
Unless of course, this is a classic case of "selective realism".
Need the planes performing realistic, prop wash, torque forces, lift, G factor, all that loads of shi*... but we don't need any 'realism' concerning gunnery? Because inhibiting factors interfering with the pure ballistics displays, is gonna ruin someone's fun?
Toad, the only thing realistic about AH gunnery is that it proves the gun can hit out far as suggested by theoretical ballistics. All the other factors quoted again and again, which interact with ballistics, are missing.
And judging from your two questions I quoted above, I think you know that what happens in AH, is unrealistic.
So the ultimate question is,
Why is gunnery an exception from overall realism?
.....
You guys have had years to accomodate to the fact that you can be killed at ~600 yards and more in AH if you don't maneuver and it still seems to be a problem with yas
.. Let's quote Tony again.
As a very rough rule of thumb, typical maximum effective firing distances in RL would seem to have been around 400m against bombers, 250m against fighters flying straight and level, and 100m or less against manoeuvring targets.
Maybe we were waiting for years for AH to be changed into something like what is quoted above.
-
I'm sure having fun, the way it is now. :)
-
So am I Steve. :)
I'm just hoping for the better.. which of course, to some, it may not seem better.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
But I dare claim those two decisions, over time, is gonna prove to be the bane of AH
Well, you are certainly entitled to that opinion. Note that HT has posted in this thread and elected not to comment on either side.
Originally posted by Kweassa
almost every case of shooting down is a result of guns fired over four~five football fields
I'm sure that I get as many kills inside 300 yards as I do outside of it. I admit, I look for the whirling, swirling, close-action dogfights, however. But your generalization is just that, and purest speculation besides. That's putting it politely; your statement is that which makes the flowers grow.
It's like the famous 1.2 kill. We all heard it happens everyday to every player and all the time. When HT called for films, NONE could be found. Eventually, one showed up and it was questionable IIRC.
Now we have "every kill is over 500 yards". Baloney.
Originally posted by Kweassa
the only thing realistic about AH gunnery is that it proves the gun can hit out far as suggested by theoretical ballistics.
Well, that's where it all starts, isn't it? And secondly, ballistics aren't theoretical.
Now let's review the sacred laundry list again. Suppose you got every single wish with respect to your "other factors" granted. Then suppose you still got nailed at 500 yards on your dead straight or repetive no-change slow jink?
Then what are you going to blame it on?
Originally posted by Kweassa
Why is gunnery an exception from overall realism?
This may come as a shock to you, but there are many exceptions to overall realism. These are usually characterized as "gameplay concessions" although some are "hardware concessions" due to the limitations of trying to create a huge 3d world where folks use stereoscopic vision on a 19" flatscreen monitor.
As for Tony's quote, with all due respect, that's merely anecdotal evidence. AFAIK, we have little evidence of actual kill range. What we have is pilot estimations.
No one accepts anecdotal performance reports, yet we are now to take anecdotal ranges as gospel? It's been my experience that things in the clear air at altitude look much closer than they actually are. I say this after driving up behind tanker aircraft countless times and manually flying in to "precontact" position from anywhere from 10 to 3 miles out with the Nav 1 callng out radar ranges. Tough to argue with radar range though........
-
As for Tony's quote, with all due respect, that's merely anecdotal evidence. AFAIK, we have little evidence of actual kill range. What we have is pilot estimations.
This is a good one.
So, since we have little "evidence" of actual kill range9as claimed by you), we are entitled to use a system of gunnery which the subtle factors which might influence it are absent?
And continue to discredit 'anecdotal evidence' which researchers highly agree on, and at the same time, we're supposed to support results of in-the-game gunnery that doesn't have any evidencial link to history at all?
By your logic we are to choose between two differing views on gunnery, both with not much 'evidence' to prove its superiority.
So, we are to arbitrarily support a type of gunnery that is against every 'anecdotal evidence', and conclusions of research from the historians, on the sole fact that ballistics supports it. That leads to a very intriguing perspective on history of gunnery in WW2, Toad.
You're saying every pilot was range-impared that they always mistook shots being fired as close range, when it was much further than that in reality.
That's also saying the major battling air powers, which victory or defeat was at stake, made decisions on matters surrounding gunnery upon ridiculous reports from range-impared pilots, and at the same time, the numerous true aces of the war became obsessed in doing something that was totally unnecessary - getting in close to fire, which is risking collision, overshoot, unexpected mistakes and unnecessary dangers.
Such doofuses..! According to the ballistics, they just had to aim a right point from 400~500 meters out, and they could have killed their targets easily.
...
Ok. You didn't exactly say those things, and I know I'm putting words in your mouth. But the point is, your brushing away what little 'evidence' there is concerning this issue as the category of 'anecdotes', and are in support of an arbitrary gunnery modelling which matches no accounts, and has no evidence at all.
Well, it's not arbitrary. It does have ballistics, and that alone.
....
This may come as a shock to you, but there are many exceptions to overall realism. These are usually characterized as "gameplay concessions" although some are "hardware concessions" due to the limitations of trying to create a huge 3d world where folks use stereoscopic vision on a 19" flatscreen monito
What's more shocking, is you are actually relating various other matters which are related to 'gameplay concessions' to this very issue.
Where's the game play concession on plane stalls? E-retention characteristics? I don't see anyone talking about game play concessions on the combat flaps of the P-51D? Or the performance charts of the planes?
No. I hear concessions about strats, CV/Ship modelling, GV aspect, ground-war aspect. But I don't see any 'game play concession' on matters which are directly related to the issue of portraying planes itself.
So then, why the gameplay concession on gunnery? Why is the gunnery aspect a game concession in the first place? Why does anyone need a gameplay concession to aid people to do something which many people specifically claim that rarely happened in WW2 air combat of real life?
In other words, if it is a game play concession, why do we need a game play concession allowing people to hit and aim easily at targets at "claimed" unrealistical distances? Which in turn, provides the community of countless misunderstandings and gripes, discontent and disbeliefs, fights on Ch1, "bullshi*" claims and etc etc?
I'm sure that I get as many kills inside 300 yards as I do outside of it. I admit, I look for the whirling, swirling, close-action dogfights, however. But your generalization is just that, and purest speculation besides. That's putting it politely
Speculation on what? Speculation that 300~600 yard kills aren't often in AH? Or speculation that real life gunnery wasn't any good over those distances?
Besides, I notice that you aren't denying the fact it happens. You're merely questioning the 'frequency' of it happening. This is so ironic that by the "ballistics" you have quoted, is exactly what adds to my analogy. People know they can kill over ranges out that far. They don't hesitate to shoot. It happens frequently, and that is why people are discontent.
The true 'long range' gunnery - over 800yards? I admit that is not very frequent. 1.2k deaths? Not me, I never went through that one.
But hits at 300 to 600 yards? Happens all the time. How do you think the Spitfires and N1k2s, which are relatively slow planes, get 20% of kills in the MA? Its because they are barely fast enough to come into above distances, and gain a chance to spray.
...
Well, you are certainly entitled to that opinion. Note that HT has posted in this thread and elected not to comment on either side
And I am thankful to HT, for patiently listening the debate out.
........
Now let's review the sacred laundry list again. Suppose you got every single wish with respect to your "other factors" granted. Then suppose you still got nailed at 500 yards on your dead straight or repetive no-change slow jink?
Then what are you going to blame it on?
Nothing.
I've wrote it before, and I write it again. If that is so, then it does prove AH pilots are much skilled, despite the various inhibiting factors.
Quoting my own words "I humbly rest the case".
But that's a problem to worry about when the changes actually come.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
The true 'long range' gunnery - over 800yards? I admit that is not very frequent. 1.2k deaths? Not me, I never went through that one.
You should try attacking a good B-17 pilot. He'll get you as far out as 1800 yards if you're trailing him. So called "anectodal" evidence suggests the real B-17 crews had real difficulties hitting at 500 yards, even against the big Ju88 bomber-interceptors.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
You should try attacking a good B-17 pilot. He'll get you as far out as 1800 yards if you're trailing him.
I call. Let's see the film.
Let me guess.. you forgot to film it? But it's happened to you 100's of times?
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Ok. You didn't exactly say those things, and I know I'm putting words in your mouth.
Yep. So I'll wait till you write a cogent reply before answering.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I call. Let's see the film.
Let me guess.. you forgot to film it? But it's happened to you 100's of times?
I wouldn't say 100's of times. Was shot down (as opposed to just pinged) at 1800 yards once. 1400 yard trailing shots are more common. I tend to avoid bombers now unless I'm in a heavily armed plane in a good position (2 o'clock/10 o'clock) and have lots of E. I'm not that much of an ego-flyer so rarely film my fights, but this is easily tested. I'll get a squad mate to help me test in the DA and film it for your convenience.
-
I go away for a few days and it's hard to catch up!
A couple of comments re past posts:
RAF tracers: this is from 'Flying Guns WW2' concerning the BoB:
"The RAF fighters armed with eight .303" guns differed from the usual practice by loading each gun with only one type of ammunition. During the Battle of Britain in 1940, the reported use was three guns loaded with ball, two with AP, two with Mk IV incendiary tracer and one with Mk VI incendiary (the "De Wilde"). It is not clear why the Mk VI was used so little or why ball was used at all; possibly there was a shortage of the more effective loadings."
The Mk IV was a Buckingham type incendiary, which was ignited on firing and left a smoke trail. It was otherwise only half as effective as the Mk VI.
MG-FFM trajectories: my understanding is that the (heavy) HET and API rounds had a reduced velocity compared with the (light) M-Geschoss in oder to keep the recoil balanced, rather than matching the trajectory. The API blowback guns like the MG-FF seem to have been sensitive to recoil in their operation.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
A suggestion:
Doesn't look like either of you guys will give up on your stance, so why not agree to disagree on these matters.
-
I've been killed a few times out at 1.5-1.6 by bombers, it is very possible. I'd be happy to go to the DA with you and show you.
-
be fair even if you are 1.5 on a bombers 6 the bullet isnt going to travel 1.5 to hit you. You are flying at it at whatever speed you are going so the bullet isnt traveling 1.5k.
The buff pilot may have fired at 1.5k which is crazy but you also flew into it. There was tests posted on this board (or another dont recall) that showed ground test results from bomber gunners firing at targets at 600 yrds. The dispersion was like 26ft from tail gunner. Further from the side gunner. I know "more dispersion means a greater likelyhood of a hit blah blah blah"..... but thats so much bs. As I said before even if it increased the likelyhood of a hit it doesnt mean a higher chance of a kill.
But read HTs quote in that interview westy linked. Buff guns are made easy for gameplay. Ballistically its not better or worse then the 50s on any fighter. But like everything else its how well and how easy it is for you to aim.
Btw toad pilot accounts of firing inside x range maybe anecdotal but its backed up by training material and studies. I posted a link to "Schiessfibel" (Shooting booklet) deals with range and all aspects of gunnery..
http://rafiger.de/Homepage/Literatur/Schiessfibel.pdf
I have seen similiar books for the raf and VVS. Read what Tony posted
"The basic problem was that few pilots were able to judge the aiming point correctly. They tended to underestimate both the range to the target and, for a deflection shot, the amount of lead that had to be allowed. And these were not small errors. When during trials pilots were asked to open fire at 300 yards, the actual distances varied between 800 and 1200 yards! Confronted with such unpleasant facts, the official advice given to fighter pilots was to take divide their range estimate by two and double their estimate of the lead! More practical was the advice to open fire from as close as possible, preferably less than 100 yards, and never from more than 300 yards. Halving the range would quadruple the number of hits."
So the problem with underestimating range isnt that folks were getting kills at long ranges and didnt realize it. It was they were firing beyond ranges where they could not expect to get a reasonable number of hits to bring down the enemy.
Hohun posted on this thread subject on AGW. He posted in much more detail about lw siudies but I will refer you just to his reply in this thread
Dispersion of wing-mounted 12.7 mm machine guns may be 6 mil, which means that at 800 m the projectiles impact in a 4.8 m circle - that's 18.1 m^2, while a fighter-sized target may offer around 3 m^2 target area. In other words, even with perfect aim, only 1 in 6 projectiles is going to hit.
Dispersion of a fuselage-mounted 13 mm machine guns will probably be less than 2 mil. That's an 1.6 m diameter circle, or a 2 m^2 area. That means that with perfect aim, the vast majority of the projectiles is going to hit.
(Of course, wing-mounting versus fuselage mounting doesn't depend on the weapon type. The P-38 for example can be expected to be outstanding in long range firepower.)
Now to get an impression of the effectiveness of machine guns at long range under realistic conditions, we can draw on German studies. According to their figures, the 15 mm MG151 per projectile had 27% of the effectiveness of the MG151/20, which in turn was reckoned to be able to reliably destroy a fighter with 6 random hits. The 12.7 mm Browning projectiles had 68% of the MG151's muzzle energy, which I'll take as indication of their relative effectiveness. As result, I'll consider 33 random hits by 12.7 mm ammunition enough to destroy a fighter aircraft. At 800 m, that would require about 201 rounds to be fired, which a battery of 6 Brownings could manage in about 2.9 s.
For comparison, how about a MG151/20 attack at 800 m? German sources give a 1.9 mil dispersion for this gun, so a 50% hit chance is a rather conservative estimate. That means with perfect aim, 12 rounds would have to be fired from centre-line mounted MG151/20 cannon. That would take a Fw 190 with its wing-root cannon just 0.5 s.
Of course, these calculations rely on the unrealistic assumption of perfect aim. To illustrate the effect of this factor: The Luftwaffe expected that a typical pilot under combat conditions firing a MG151/20 battery at a heavy bomber at 1000 m would have a hit ratio of 3%. However, the ballistic capabilities of the weapon hardly influenced the hit probability: The 50 mm MK214 which probably featured a much better trajectory than any other WW2 air combat weapon still gave the average Luftwaffe pilot no better than 4.2% hit chance under the same conditions.
So add it all up.
Also pilots had the ability to range in their targets with their site. Thats what the "ring" was for. Against a hard manuvering target it may not have been practical but nether would long range hits in that case. If a pilot was closing on an unsuspecting bad guy he certainly could range in.
So if your claim is :"how do you know what range they fired at". The majority of the evidence tells us.
-
Just some thoughts on the various subjects here.
1: Hit sprites show as exactly the same regardless of the gun/range/shell type being fired
Fix: Model hit sprites not as sprites, but as variable particle effects based on the round fired. While you're at it, expand the gun shake effect so it gets based off the gun caliber.
2: Composite ammunition is probably causing a lot of the "insta-kill" stuff we see.
Fix: Model actual ammunition belt mix as player selectable based on historical usage. Drop the combo bullets and model each round as individual rounds. HE is HE, AP is AP, and so on
3: Damage effects are nowhere near detailed enough. Damaging specific components is nigh on impossible.
Fix: Increase the detail level of the damage model to include fuel/radiator/oil lines, control cables/linkages, wiring, hydraulic systems, etc...
4: Aircraft, vehicles, and ships use different damage models.
Fix: Force everything to use the same damage model. Armor plate has the same effect on incoming rounds regardless of what it gets mounted on. Armor thickness, type, and angle are the only variables which allow rounds to be stopped or penetrate. There are well-known calculations for figuring a given round's ability to penetrate a given type/thickness of armor. Nathan Okun has demonstrated this very well. Shells skipping off ship armor, water, aircraft, vehicles, dirt, etc... happened IRL. Could 20mm AP rounds cut off control of a destroyer? Possibly. Could 30mm rounds bounce off the skin of a bomber? At the right angle. Currently, the aircraft damage model is like the pre-revision vehicle DM. Bullet A impacts object N with X amount of velocity and Y ft-lbs of energy.
5: Explosive cannon shells might be causing too much damage
Fix: HE rounds inflict damage primarily from a chemical explosion, not from penetration. But without penetration, you can't activate the fuse and set off the blast. It's a circular argument that can not be solved easily.
6: People are getting kills at outlandish ranges
Fix: We'd have to know what the current dispersion model would be like after making changes. Since there were RARE kills at long range, completely doing away with the possibility of long distance kills would be a very bad idea.
7: Spray n pray is hurting the game
Fix: Remove ammo counters for aircraft that did not have them and introduce gun jams for hot guns/high-G maneuvering.
8: Tracers are too big
Fix: Make tracers an actual particle effect and reduce their size.
9: Ballistic model needs more parameters
Fix: Introduce the "curveball" effect in this thread here (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26068&highlight=curveball) along with other wind-related factors. Requires a complete revamp of the current weather system first as the wind never varies in speed or heading at a given altitude. Also, make rockets fly in the direction the aircraft is currently pointed, not in the direction of flight.
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
Put the P-61B in Aces High
(http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/sig/veggie.gif)
-
Well said, and wholeheartedly agreed, flakbait.
-
We had these same discussions about gunnery range on AW forums ten years ago. The bottom line is there will always a balance between playability and realism. We pay our monthly dues, log on, and expect to score a few kills. If it took six months of flight school before we ever pressed the trigger, well, I suspect our first month dues would also be our last.
As for the range which WWII pilots scored kills, well, there is nothing anecdotal about it. There are a lot of gun camera footage recording kills. A little detective work (camera lens spec, type, airplane dimensions …) and some arithmetic is all that is required.
romad
-
Urchin, let's do it. I'm always interested in actually documenting this stuff rather than just reading the tales about it.
GScholz is putting out 1800. Let's start with that and work in.
-
We had these same discussions about gunnery range on AW forums ten years ago. The bottom line is there will always a balance between playability and realism. We pay our monthly dues, log on, and expect to score a few kills. If it took six months of flight school before we ever pressed the trigger, well, I suspect our first month dues would also be our last.
That's what they said about IL-2. That's what I felt also.
After the demo, and the initial release, I was very impressed how the gunnery worked out, but kinda skeptical on if such difficult gunnery is going to attract anyone besides the 'dedicated fans' of flight/air combat sims.
..
Well, the result?
IL-2 and FB are currently a record-breaker in sales in the flight-sim genre. True, gunnery is only one of the many aspects that attract a lot of people, even those previously without flight-sim experiences. But at least the feel and the challenge of what the game offers has attracted customers to this genre like nothing before. People don't refrain from the game because the gunnery is too hard.
To think that the boxed-game flight-sim genre was always a very small, hardly profittable market.. that is pretty much astounding success.
Besides, the same logic can be applied to difficulty of learning to fly a plane. When a frustrated newbie exclaims online "I can't do this", people don't say "yeah, it's not a game for new people." They all say "it has a learning curve.. Don't worry, be patient, and practice a lot." No reason the same cannot be applied to gunnery, IMO.
Another positive side, is that the difficulty of shooting at ahistoric ranges, effectively deals away with the "freak shots" and "bullshi*" claims. Nobody ever whines about "nice spray" or "bullshi*! I was out at 800 yards!", since something like that happening is really really rare. Even more rare than the 1.2k kills claimed from time to time in AH.
-
Some thoughts.
1: Hit sprites show as exactly the same regardless of the gun/range/shell type being fired
Fix: Model hit sprites not as sprites, but as variable particle effects based on the round fired. While you're at it, expand the gun shake effect so it gets based off the gun caliber.
They do change size with range.
2: Composite ammunition is probably causing a lot of the "insta-kill" stuff we see.
Fix: Model actual ammunition belt mix as player selectable based on historical usage. Drop the combo bullets and model each round as individual rounds. HE is HE, AP is AP, and so on
Very doubtfull.
3: Damage effects are nowhere near detailed enough. Damaging specific components is nigh on impossible.
Fix: Increase the detail level of the damage model to include fuel/radiator/oil lines, control cables/linkages, wiring, hydraulic systems, etc...
This would make 1 ping/golden bb kills even happen more.
After makeing the vehicle damage model i've found that drastic randomes caused by things like armor penitration, fuel lines,oil lines and such increase the perseption that there are bugs. Even thow the idea sounds great, people tend to want to see consitancy of out come. I.E. you would be constantly hearing 2 things.
"This damage model is porked , I was hit by 1 303 and it killed my engine"
"This damage model is porked, I put 50 rounds into that plane and it didn't die"
We hear those exact 2 things all the time with the vehicle damage.
4: Aircraft, vehicles, and ships use different damage models.
Fix: Force everything to use the same damage model. Armor plate has the same effect on incoming rounds regardless of what it gets mounted on. Armor thickness, type, and angle are the only variables which allow rounds to be stopped or penetrate. There are well-known calculations for figuring a given round's ability to penetrate a given type/thickness of armor. Nathan Okun has demonstrated this very well. Shells skipping off ship armor, water, aircraft, vehicles, dirt, etc... happened IRL. Could 20mm AP rounds cut off control of a destroyer? Possibly. Could 30mm rounds bounce off the skin of a bomber? At the right angle. Currently, the aircraft damage model is like the pre-revision vehicle DM. Bullet A impacts object N with X amount of velocity and Y ft-lbs of energy.
This would have very little impact on planes. We do have this type of model running with the ground vehicles. But exactly how much armor is on a plane, it mostly only applies to the pilot.
With gound object damage, the model is very simple, range dosn't even effect damage. But other than a few special objects like ships, it's realy not worth the setup time to define all the penation details of an ground target.
5: Explosive cannon shells might be causing too much damage
Fix: HE rounds inflict damage primarily from a chemical explosion, not from penetration. But without penetration, you can't activate the fuse and set off the blast. It's a circular argument that can not be solved easily.
Penetration and impact are 2 different items. If anything explosive shells are not lethal enof.
6: People are getting kills at outlandish ranges
Fix: We'd have to know what the current dispersion model would be like after making changes. Since there were RARE kills at long range, completely doing away with the possibility of long distance kills would be a very bad idea.
I would say that the norm is not getting kills at long range. So if you wan't to disscuss this start by defing RARE, 1 in 10 1 in 100?
Then take a look at the main and see what the kill ranges are.
2nd start with the assumtion that kill ranges will be longer in AH than antidotal information provides. Because it is a given that AH players have at least 100 times more practice than in real life.
You can also find out the dispersion on all aircraft by using the .target command.
7: Spray n pray is hurting the game
Fix: Remove ammo counters for aircraft that did not have them and introduce gun jams for hot guns/high-G maneuvering.
Is it realy hurting the game? How many good gunners in AH do you know that spray and pray. I Think it happens more to new guys then people you would be concerned about hitting you.
8: Tracers are too big
Fix: Make tracers an actual particle effect and reduce their size.
It would make thing harder, but would it be realistic? Tracers are large primarly so you can see them when being shot at. From the shooter point of view they are down to 1 pixel size very rapidly anyway, so are you asking for tracers to disapear out side of 200 yards? If so how far in real life can you see the tracers.
9: Ballistic model needs more parameters
Fix: Introduce the "curveball" effect in this thread here along with other wind-related factors. Requires a complete revamp of the current weather system first as the wind never varies in speed or heading at a given altitude. Also, make rockets fly in the direction the aircraft is currently pointed, not in the direction of flight.
Rockets do NOT fly in the direction a plane is pointed in real life.
We could intruduce the wind factors you are talking about, but inflight wind is constant. 95% of the time turblance is only down low.
Flakbait, thanks for posting in a non combative tone. You discused the issues and gave your view points with out pulling all the other crap into the post. These type of post are the ones that can be responded to.
Batz, You might want to start asking yourself why is FB so unrealistcly hard and how exactly they model ballistics, vs why AH is easier that FB.
HiTech
-
Who said fb is unrealistically difficult? I think I said I thought ah was "unrealistically easy". Not ballistically but in aiming and killing at longer ranges. I cant tell you what is real and dont pretend to. I just know that 1 matches more closely the documented and anecdotal evidence.
The idea that ah'rs are so much more experienced may make sense at face value but in FB guys have flown il2 since release and still arent knocking you down at long range. I said in my experience ah kill range is about 450 - 550 yrds. Kills between 550 - 800 are above the norm but I have seen them enough to know they are more then "rare". The 1k -1.2k kills fall into rare but they do happen. Kills in side 250 are about as rare.
My hit % is higher there then in ah, My hits per kill is a bit less then ah but in ah I tend to fire until I see the explosion.
Fb most kills are eng, control cables/surfaces pilot etc.
You can still hit and kill in FB at the same ranges as ah. The hissos are hizookas there as well.
I agree that the more radomization you add to the dm the louder the whines will get. I said that that above. My point isnt ah should do it this way but a simple debate about gunery in general. Read what hohun said that the "MG151/20... was reckoned to be able to reliably destroy a fighter with 6 random hits."
If anything the only thing I would like to see looked at is
If anything explosive shells are not lethal enof
in particularly with the mgff. But seeing as how very few fly the planes with mgff I dont think it would be a priority.
OTOH flying the a6m2 you need to get in real close (well inside 200) to hope to get any real damage; especially against the f4f). I do concede the duality in my posts. Pointing out long range gunnery in one breath then complaining about having to be in close with the a6m2 in another. :p
But I flew the a6m2 quite alot and flew it in 2 scenarios (1 which I coed) and universally you would hear guys say they dumped all 120 rounds of type 99 mk 1 into an f4f and he just flew away. Brady said he chatted with pyro and there may be something to that whine.
Any way its your game.....
-
2nd start with the assumtion that kill ranges will be longer in AH than antidotal information provides. Because it is a given that AH players have at least 100 times more practice than in real life.
And all along, we have discussed very many things why that claim, might not be as truthful as it seems, HT.
Besides, your theory that 'dispersion actually increases hit chance', after hearing some other perspectives on this matter, really doesn't seem that likely.
It would make thing harder, but would it be realistic? Tracers are large primarly so you can see them when being shot at. From the shooter point of view they are down to 1 pixel size very rapidly anyway, so are you asking for tracers to disapear out side of 200 yards? If so how far in real life can you see the tracers.
Does 'making them visible' really have to be related to the size of the thing? I understand this one, is just how it is implemented in current AH. That's why we are suggesting a change of method.
This would make 1 ping/golden bb kills even happen more.
After makeing the vehicle damage model i've found that drastic randomes caused by things like armor penitration, fuel lines,oil lines and such increase the perseption that there are bugs. Even thow the idea sounds great, people tend to want to see consitancy of out come. I.E. you would be constantly hearing 2 things.
Inconsistent? Yes, IL-2 and FB is also inconsistent. Sometimes a lucky shot will break off a wing, other times, hundreds of rounds pelted into a plane, and it would still fly. But people whine about the inconsistency of GV modelling in AH, but they don't whine the inconsistency of plane DM in IL2/FB. Why is that?
Maybe the trick is to diversify them enough, to give the people the illusion that it is not 'inconsistent', rather, just a part of 'variety'.
For instance, if the internal engine compartments were modelled with damageable parts varying from superchargers, gears, pistons, oil lines, coolant tubes, rods, throttle control and etc.. sure, maybe one hit will kill it, maybe it will take more. But at least it would be something else than just oil, engine, radiator. 'Inconsistent' things may happen, but in this case, the 'inconsistency' becomes variety.
....
They do change size with range.
This is an interesting one. Which probably means the variations in sizes are rarely enough for one to notice, even for someone as observant as flakbait.
Also, the length of the hit sprites staying on the screen, seems to be too long, not to mention the fact hit sprites are visible even when the view is obscured by the cockpit. The differences in hit sprites between cannon shells and MGs, are also unaccounted for.
...
Is it realy hurting the game? How many good gunners in AH do you know that spray and pray. I Think it happens more to new guys then people you would be concerned about hitting you.
Is there any reason to implement it in the first place then? Internal layout and devices, such as ammo counters are part of strengths and weaknesses of different planes. Would absence of ammo counters on planes that did not have them, really hurt the game playability that much so it should absolutely exist? Can it not be possible that acknowledging the varying characteristics between such planes, could make up for the part of fun by itself?
..
Batz, You might want to start asking yourself why is FB so unrealistcly hard and how exactly they model ballistics, vs why AH is easier that FB.
This, is a comment nuance I've seen before. As in "don't believe all that they tell you." a while ago.
What exactly is it that you know about IL2/FB that we don't know, that makes you so certain that they implemented things unrealistically, or artificially neutered something, and thus the game is unrealistically difficult?
It's really ironic that you comment a sim, which matches historical accounts as close as possible so far, as something 'unrealistically hard'. I am really curious which part of the IL2/FB is so unrealistic.
-
Ok Toad, I'll look you up in the game. I did to a test at one point with the bomber guns a while back, I believe the max range on the bomber guns shooting backwards is 1,700 and change, and forwards is 1,400 and change. I just did /range xxxx and kept moving it back until I didn't see holes in the target anymore.
-
Always interested in the fact of it Urchin, rather than the old wive's tales.
Was fun that time we fooled with the tank; I look forward to it.
-
Btw urchin that would also depend on what altitude you are at. Bullets are limited by time of flight not range. Hence when higher or shooting back there range increases.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
What exactly is it that you know about IL2/FB that we don't know, that makes you so certain that they implemented things unrealistically, or artificially neutered something, and thus the game is unrealistically difficult?
It's really ironic that you comment a sim,
How to Win Friends and Influence People (http://www.westegg.com/unmaintained/carnegie/win-friends.html#four)
:D
-
Originally posted by hitech
Some thoughts.
They do change size with range.
Well, that's definitely nice to know. But regarding the rest? Gun shake based on caliber would increase immersion factor. Particle-based hit effects would look a lot better at close-medium range, especially with GVs.
Very doubtfull.
I remember Pyro saying somewhere that he did not want to model individual types of ammunition. Whether or not this is indeed a factor in the high-lethality we have I don't know. I do know that modeling round types accurately would increase the amount of realism present.
This would make 1 ping/golden bb kills even happen more.
After makeing the vehicle damage model i've found that drastic randomes caused by things like armor penitration, fuel lines,oil lines and such increase the perseption that there are bugs. Even thow the idea sounds great, people tend to want to see consitancy of out come. I.E. you would be constantly hearing 2 things.
"This damage model is porked , I was hit by 1 303 and it killed my engine"
"This damage model is porked, I put 50 rounds into that plane and it didn't die"
We hear those exact 2 things all the time with the vehicle damage.
At the current lethality levels, you're probably right. It would also cause more varied damage effects; which would be a vast improvement over the current "it works or it's destroyed" system we have. With regards to the GV damage model, it's been a long time since I opened up at a GV with 50 cals and saw any effect. The legendary Hizooka seems to cause some damage against tanks when the moons are aligned, but for the most part they bounce off as often as .50 cals do. At least from what I've seen in H2H.
This would have very little impact on planes. We do have this type of model running with the ground vehicles. But exactly how much armor is on a plane, it mostly only applies to the pilot.
With gound object damage, the model is very simple, range dosn't even effect damage. But other than a few special objects like ships, it's realy not worth the setup time to define all the penation details of an ground target.
Agreed, fixed ground targets are simplistic enough as to not require a highly detailed damage model. Though I would say that impact velocity and energy should be a part of the damage done to them.
Aircraft, vehicles, and ships should all be playing by the same rules, though. With the current GV armor model being as detailed as it is, you could port that over to ships with ease. When combined with a more detailed DM for ships, people would be able to knock out all sorts of things on them. Aircraft also need a detailed armor model, and armor in any AC affects more than just the pilot. Ammo magazines, fuel tanks, engines, windscreens, and so on were armored in one aircraft or another. Not allowing the DM to reject some aircraft hits based on energy/impact angle leaves us with a DM similar to to the old GV model. With that model we were seeing regular .50 cal kills of GVs, and 20mm cannons were more like lasers.
Penetration and impact are 2 different items. If anything explosive shells are not lethal enof.
Indeed they are two different items, and without one the other can't happen. But explosive shells are APHE in the current model, not strictly HE rounds. While the blast effect might be undermodeled, the penetration factor is overmodeled.
I would say that the norm is not getting kills at long range. So if you wan't to disscuss this start by defing RARE, 1 in 10 1 in 100?
Then take a look at the main and see what the kill ranges are.
2nd start with the assumtion that kill ranges will be longer in AH than antidotal information provides. Because it is a given that AH players have at least 100 times more practice than in real life.
You can also find out the dispersion on all aircraft by using the .target command.
I can not verify what the kill ranges in the main are as they vary from encounter to encounter and pilot to pilot. In addition, the main never reports the range a person was killed at. WW2 pilot reports with regards to range are rarely accurate (as stated by Tony) which makes figuring things out all the more difficult.
As for player experience, that has been known for quite some time as a major factor in getting kills at longer distances. As strictly an example, if the average WW2 kill was bagged at 300 yards, the average AH kill would probably be around 450 yards. Possibly even further out, I'm not entirely sure.
Yes, the .target command has come in handy in the past for pointing out dispersion bugs and I'm very glad we have it available. The plus-sign dispersion hiccup last year was fixed with the help of it.
Is it realy hurting the game? How many good gunners in AH do you know that spray and pray. I Think it happens more to new guys then people you would be concerned about hitting you.
Personally I haven't seen too much spray n pray, but the problem has been brought up before. This was simply a suggestion about what might curb it. Besides, adding somesort of gun malfunctions would make things a tad more interesting.
It would make thing harder, but would it be realistic? Tracers are large primarly so you can see them when being shot at. From the shooter point of view they are down to 1 pixel size very rapidly anyway, so are you asking for tracers to disapear out side of 200 yards? If so how far in real life can you see the tracers.
Tracers weren't used as an alarm signal for enemy pilots to know when they're being shot at, tracers were there to aid the aim of the pilot doing the killing. Take a screen shot of the AH tracer when shooting from any GV, then look at day and night photos of actual MG fire. AH tracers during the day glow from all angles, real tracers only glow from the rear. Look at any Vietnam war footage from a door gunner's perspective and watch the tracers as he fires. In AH we'd see thirty-foot long bolts of light arcing for the ground. In the footage I've seen the tracers are rather small, but they do glow rather brightly. Another aid for tracers was very well known: color. AH tracers are yellow universally. Basing tracer color by country would create a more impressive visual effect, and let you know roughly what country of AC was shooting at you.
Rockets do NOT fly in the direction a plane is pointed in real life.
Yes, they do. If the rocket motor, nose, fins, and body of a rocket are fixed to the rack, and the rack is anchored to the wing, the thrust from the rocket being fired will always be exactly perpendicular to the wing. Unless, of course, they had rotating rocket launchers in WW2 that would aim the rockets in some different direction. Also, according to this statement, you can hit ground targets with rockets even if you're not pointing the nose of the aircraft at them. Getting the nose on target is a basic requirement of using any ballistic weapon, rocket or bullet.
We could intruduce the wind factors you are talking about, but inflight wind is constant. 95% of the time turblance is only down low.
Inflight wind is currently no better than most primative flight sims. It is always blowing at a constant speed from a constant vector and only changes when the host settings are changed. A more detailed ballistic model would require more realistic weather, which is why I mentioned the wind. Deja once asked if cross-wind dynamics were modeled (the thread link above) but without a more detailed weather system any additional ballistic effects would be too predictable for the pilot.
Flakbait, thanks for posting in a non combative tone. You discused the issues and gave your view points with out pulling all the other crap into the post. These type of post are the ones that can be responded to.
HiTech
Again, you're welcome HT.
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
Put the P-61B in Aces High
(http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/sig/geek.gif)
-
Flack 2 things.
1.
Rockets will very quickly turn into the wind after launch. For get the thrust for a moment. Picture what would happen to the rocket if it were just droped off the plane. It would turn into the wind i.e the direction the plane is travling. The same thing happens when thrust is applied because the fwd velocity relative to the plane at the time they leave the rails is very small. We acctualy give the rockets more initial fwd velocity to make this effect less than it would be in real life.
2.
Deja once asked if cross-wind dynamics were modeled .
They are modeled, but because the wind effects the plane and bullet exactly the same, the bullet still travels straight ahead relative to the plane.
HiTech
-
If cross-wind dynamics are modeled, then it must be bullet gyro that's missing. Wind does not affect aircraft and bullets the same way as the two are shaped completely different. Plus, a bullet is rotating at high speed because of rifling, while an aircraft is flying with no rotation at all.
As for rockets, uhh no. Dropping a rocket is not the same as firing it, and when you shoot something it has a tendency to fly in the direction you pointed it in. If we follow this line of thinking then every bomb dropped in AH must turn into the wind. There is no difference between a dropped bomb and a dropped rocket, both will go nose-down and drift according to what the wind is doing. Saying a rocket will immedately turn into the wind and fly off in that direction is nonsense. I suppose shooting an arrow from a bow in high wind means the arrow will immedately jerk into the wind and fly off in some odd direction?
While some modern missiles drop off, then launch, WW2 rockets always flew off the rail. Since the rail forces the rocket to point in the same direction as the aircraft's nose, and the rocket motor fires while still on the rail, the rocket will fly in the same direction the nose is pointing.
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
Put the P-61B in Aces High
(http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/sig/end_net.gif)
-
HT,
I bailed on my own post because it went so far off track. But it seems to have come full circle.
Flakbait touched on some good points. The one that stands out is your answer on explosive shells where you say say the effects are undermodeled not overmodeled.
Two things.
1. How do we (more you than us) know what the effects of exlposive shells are to aircraft structures? I know the explosive capability is known for each shell but how do we know the effects on the A/C structure?
2. Which leads to my second point. Hooligan posted a study that was done post WW2 that showed the causes of lost A/C per type of hit on different A/C types. It showed the majority had to do with engine and Hydrolic failures and much less from structural hits. Shouldn't this be more the norm? I feel as if the catostrophic failures should take place less frequently than in AH currently.
Basically I equate the damage model to the effects of jumping off of a building. It's not the fall, it's the sudden stop that kills you. Our DM is the same. It's not the ballitics (bullet flight), it the damage after the impact that gets you.
-
Concerning the accuracy of rockets - this is from 'Flying Guns: World War 2':
"In contrast, one direct hit with a bomb or 60 lb RP meant certain destruction for the heaviest tank. However, their accuracy left a lot to be desired. Even under practice conditions, the hit rate for the RPs against tanks was no better than 5%. This was graphically illustrated by a demonstration put on by Typhoons against a captured Panther tank placed in the middle of an open field, helpfully painted white with large red crosses on it to make sure the pilots could see it. Of the 64 RPs fired (launched in a typical steep dive at ranges of 750-900 m), only three hit the tank. In battle, RP accuracy was considerably worse than this, with the official British calculation of hit probability against a single tank being 0.5% (in other words, 200 RPs had to be fired for each hit). Furthermore, some 20 – 30% of RP warheads failed to explode.
This fall in accuracy experienced in action may be attributed to the curious trajectory of the RP, which first dropped below the line of sight and then accelerated as the rocket motor took effect before it dropped again. Because of this it was generally desirable to fire them at a range of between 900-1,800 m. They were also very susceptible to side winds, with a mere 15 km/h wind being enough to miss the aiming mark by nearly 5 m, and the aircraft had to be absolutely steady at the instant of launching. This meant that a pilot needed a very cool and calculating head to ensure reasonable accuracy, something that was difficult to achieve in the heat of battle. It is worth noting that high-velocity cannon did not suffer from this problem, so would have experienced a much less significant fall-off in accuracy under combat conditions. RP accuracy was helped to some extent late in 1944 by the introduction of the modified Mk.IID gyro sight with calibrations suited to the RP. This presumably accounted in part for a measured improvement in the average RP miss distance between 1944 and 1945, from 57 m to just under 40 m.
The greatest accuracy was achieved in a near-vertical dive as this minimised the trajectory quirks, but this left the Typhoon visible to the usually accurate light FlaK, so many pilots preferred to attack at tree-top height, firing at distances as close as 500 m. This is curious given that theoretical British studies of different attack angles concluded that a low level (less than 30 m altitude) attack was eight times as dangerous in terms of exposure to AAA as a sixty-degree dive, but it is possible that a very low approach, using terrain, trees and buildings to mask the view of the AA gunners, might have had advantages."
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
1. How do we (more you than us) know what the effects of exlposive shells are to aircraft structures? I know the explosive capability is known for each shell but how do we know the effects on the A/C structure?
Well, it obviously depends on where exactly the shell detonates, and on the type of structure. From 'Flying Guns WW2' again, concerning the effectiveness of M-Geschoss:
"Stressed-skin alloy monococque structures were most vulnerable to being blown apart. Steel structures clad with thin aluminium were less affected as the cladding quickly split, releasing the pressure before it had much time to damage the structure, and fabric-covered structures were damaged least of all."
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Flakbait picture this extream case.
A plane is travling 90 deg sidways at 300 mph.
The rocket leaves the rail pointing west at 50 mph.
Do you believe the rocket will not weather vain?
Btw did some quick numbers, that would create aprox 50 Foot Pounds of torque initaly to rotate the rocket into the wind. Now picture a 4 foot rocket balanced on a string and parralel to the gound. Hang 25 pounds on one end, how quickly would it point straight up?
Btw bombs always do weather vain, notice that they are droped sidways but always point in the direction the are travling?
As to bullets, you are picturing bullets fired from a fixed point on the ground, not from a plane that is also travling with the wind. I.E. with a 50 MPH cross wind and the plane pointing north when the bullet is launched all wind relative to the bullet/plane is still pointing directly into the apparent wind. But the bullet & plane are not travling north, but wrather NNE. And its Vel in the East direction is 50 MPH and hence the bullet travels just as if there was no wind relative to the plane.
From the view point of the gun, the bullet will behave exatly as it does on the ground with a head wind = to the planes true air speed.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Ok Toad, I'll look you up in the game. I did to a test at one point with the bomber guns a while back, I believe the max range on the bomber guns shooting backwards is 1,700 and change, and forwards is 1,400 and change. I just did /range xxxx and kept moving it back until I didn't see holes in the target anymore.
Urchin, at 25K the bullets terminate at 2025 yards firing from the tailgunners position.
My situation as I remember it was that I was flying at 25K in my Ta-152 and I spotted a B-17 formation. I followed the B-17s which were slightly lower and moving away. As I closed to d2.0 he opened fire and I started doing light evasive maneuvers while turning slightly to his right. *ping* *ping* *ping* my left wing goes flying by itself, I looked at his icon and the range was d1.8. I remember this episode very clearly, as do the III/Jabostaffel I'm sure, from all the swearing I did on squad channel. ;)
Now compare that with this:
The Schweinfurt
Raid
-----
By Sgt. WALTER PETERS
There were fighters everywhere, but mostly on our tail. "The whole Golly-gee Luftwaffey is out today," somebody said over the inter-phone. There were the single-engined Me.109s and twin-engined Me.110s; there were Ju.88s and FW190s; there also were Me.210s, even Dornier bombers, and God only knows what else the Germans had thrown into the fight. The only things they did not throw at the division were the plane factories themselves, or such factories as they have left to throw.
"This is nothing," Zorn reassured me. "We've seen worse in other raids. About 25 minutes more to the target."
The captain took a little evasive action. The plane banked to the left, then to the right. To the right we sighted a huge column of smoke, which looked at first like a big black cloud. It was the target. Libs and Forts had already passed the ball-bearing works and hit the plants solidly. We'd soon be there, but we wondered just how soon. The passage of time is a little different up there. The Navigator told me to look out of the left side. There were a couple of planes burning there, a Fort and an enemy fighter. Three white parachutes and one brown one floated in the sky. The whites belonged to our boys. Under the brown one was a German.
When in hell are we getting to that target? Time has passed so slowly these past 15 minutes. Ten minutes more and we'll surely be there. Heuser was still calling them off. The fighters were coming in from all sides now, but not too close. Maybe about 500 yards away, often as much as 1,000. I looked back toward the fuselage. There was Tex, his left foot planted on a box of caliber 50s, his right foot lazily dangling in space. From the inter-phone we knew Tex was a very, very busy top turret gunner. His gun was tracking fighters all around the clock. Occasionally he concentrated his gun to the tail, where his friend Sweeney was busy firing at the enemy as they queued up from the rear.
A Ju.88 and a 190 attacked Sweeney's position from 4 and 8 o'clock, and high. Tex's guns worked fast. Both planes peeled off. The 190 shied off but the 88 came back from about 500 yards to the rear, flying smack into the ex-tire salesman. Sweeney calmly pressed his triggers. Meanwhile, Tex directed his fire. "You're shooting at him just a little high. Get him lower. A little lower." Sweeney did; the 88 came closer, and lobbed out two of the rockets which the Germans are now using. They were deadly looking affairs as they shot out like flames.
Tex still guided his pal over the inter-phone. "A little lower, Bill," he said. A little lower Bill went. The 88 wavered, flipped over and as it did we could see that it was afire, trailing smoke. Then there was one less Ju.88; also one less Ju.88 crew of two. They didn't get out.
---
Having trouble hitting a Ju88 at 500 yards on your B-17s six is not a factor in AH. Even for a newbie if he can find his way to the tailgunner position.
I'll do the test soon. I bet I can shoot down planes at 1800 yards, and you can prolly count the times I've flown bombers in the MA on two hands.
-
Ok HT, here's another set of numbers to run. An aircraft is heading 060 at 300mph, with a side-slip of 30 degrees east (making the rocket point towards 090), and fires a single rocket. How much force is created by the 300mph headwind? How much lateral force is exerted on the rocket from a 30º sideslip from the left? I'll bet money that the headwind's force is stronger than that of the wind created by a sideslip. That force, acting on not only the rocket body, but also the fins, will make it fly in the direction the aircraft is facing. I believe this is the part your calculations do not include.
With my bomb example I failed to clarify a point: According to your thinking, bombs dropped from a level aircraft with no sideslip or crosswind will weathervane the instant they come into contact with a crosswind at any altitude. This is not the case with bombs, or rockets. A bomb dropped from an aircraft with any degree of yaw will fly according to the aircraft's heading at the time of release. The bomb is attached to the aircraft, so it always faces the exact same heading as the aircraft. When released, the bomb will roughly hold that heading (+- 10º or so) though any wind acting upon the bomb will cause it to drift laterally, not weathervane. Why? Because the wind is hitting the whole bomb and not just a section or certain piece of it.
As for the bullets, no I'm not picturing a round being fired from the ground. It was a noted occurance during Vietnam that rounds fired from either door of a Huey in level flight required a completely different lead. The rotor wash from a Huey at 100 knots comes down behind the crew compartment, and does not effect the flight of a bullet. What does create an effect is the sudden 100 knot crosswind the bullet encounters after leaving the barrel of a 7.62x51mm M60D machine gun mounted in the door and firing between 60º and 120º relative to the wind. Here's what Chuck Carlock said about this...
Our door gunners fired from ammo belts that were straight tracer rounds. I found it interesting that firing a door gun from the left side required a different aim than firing from the right. The twisting of the bullet meeting the rushing air as the helicopter flew forward caused the bullets to react differently. The bullets fired from the right door curved and dropped to the right. The bullets fired from the left rose and veered to the right. For this reason, the door gunners needed straight tracer bullets in order to "walk" the rounds up onto the target.
Because there is no curveball effect, something is obviously not modeled or modeled incorrectly.
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
Put the P-61B in Aces High
(http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/sig/veggie.gif)
-
Urch and I spent a pleasant 15 minutes in the DA fooling with buff .50's and a trailing Spit. Urch in the buff, me in the Spit.
At 15k off A1, WITH THE SPIT ON AUTOPILOT STRAIGHT AND LEVEL ON HIS SIX, he could land hits on the Spit at about 1.6K, which is entirely within the RL range of the .50BMG. He didn't land a lot of hits, in fact very, very few. Then I closed in and hung around 1.2 to 1.4. His hit rate increased but, significantly, after a lot of shooting and maybe 25-35 pings on my Spit, I had NO DAMAGE. None.
With a new aircraft, still at 15K, I started out at 2.0 and slowly closed on him doing a low weaving maneuver on his six. Sometimes I'd jink hard to throw him off and sometimes I'd just smoothly bank left and right adding a bit of vertical.
Using this method, I got into about 1.2 before any pings landed and closed to inside 1.0 with only the occasional ping. I hung around 1.0, bobbing and weaving while he shot for quite a while. A few pings, but no damage. Then I added power and closed straight in on his tail from 1.0, level flight with barely any jinking. He shot me down before I got to 800.
The conclusion we both drew from this is no real suprise. Buff guns CAN hit you out to 1.6 but they did no damage in this instance. I got hit more at 1.2 but still no damage. Any sort of decent evasives as you close make the fighter tough to hit but greatly increase the closure time of he fighter and require the fighter to have much more patience. Inside 1.0 hits were causing damage and if the fighter is foolish enough to fly straight at a buff inside 1.0, he's going to get hosed and die.
On the flip side (I just remapped my stick and I meant to use .50 and 20mm independently but I used the "old" mapping in my brain and ended up shooting both.) I could not land hits until about 1.3 and those were very few (longer convergence might have helped, I was set at 300) and did no damage to Urch's buff. Around 1.0 I could get more hits but still no damage. I shot an entire ammo load at him between 1.6 and 1.0 and didn't do any serious damage at all.
Anyway, we both enjoyed it and if we repeat it, I'll use .50's and 20mm separately. However, the conclusion we both drew it that it's hard for a buff to kill a maneuvering fighter outside of 1k but easy if he flies straight and level. It's also tough for the fighter to kill the buff outside 1k.
Now, go crazy. ;)
-
Actually, pretty much what everybody expected. Nothing to go crazy about at all.
If you moved in with any serious intent of shooting down the buff, maneuvering at a solid point albeit a short time, instead of playing waltz with the tracers, then I have a sneaking suscpicion that you'd have some reds in the CTRL+D checklist.
Also, if there was any serious pressure on you to stop the buff from doing its critical run against your field objects, you might have been more hasty to aim, rather than evade. Which, by your account, you were also shot down.
IMO the most critical moment is when you stop to evade and close in briefly to open fire - the moment you described from 1.0d and closing in, and start aiming.
Anyhow, I think what you did could be a good training material for solo fighters to engage a buff which can cover its low-6 area. It sort of shows that solo fighters can't expect to really kill a buff alone.. just weave around, get into range, fire briefly while maneuvering, and then get out, do it again. Again and again until a part on the buff is knocked out, and hope the pings stacking up don't kill you first.
I appreciate the effort you put in for testing purposes. Any intent on posting the films, if it was filmed at all?
ps) was it a single B-17, or a formation?
ps2) The test also pretty much shows, that a fighter plane approaching a buff, will have to maneuver its way to the buff in a non-linear pattern from as far as 1.6k out. It's not so hard to do that if you have significant alt adv over the buff, but meet a plane like that at 25k, and you'll have a real hard time catching it up. Ouch.. chills down my spine!
-
a) single 17 or box?
b) single gun firing or all available guns (on the buff(s?))?
-
Single buff, don't know how he shot the guns. Lots of tracer flying though.
Actually, when I closed I was out of ammo, having done the long range test of shooting at him. But I felt I had ample opportunity to kill him inside 1000 yards when I maneuvered. It would have been several squirts as I maneuvered, not one long one holding steady. If you hold steady, you die. So you have to maneuver in a way that you know is going to offer shooting opportunities and then take them as they come.
I think a single fighter can take a single buff IF the fighter is not in a hurry and puts himself in a position of advantage to start with. You're not going to do a slow climb up the six and live.
I have a film, nowhere to post it. A couple of films I think.
-
Flacbait:This statment "but also the fins, will make it fly in the direction the aircraft is facing"
Is just backwards the fins make it return to the direction the plane is travaling, not facing. It would behaive simalar to when you would let off the rudder, and the plane would track back into the wind.
On the bullet case you are correct that we do not model the rise or sink do to cross wind on a bullet. But this does not effect forward or rear fireing guns with a cross wind,(the case i was pointing out). Only when guns are fired to the side of a plane like you sight.
HiTech
-
Toad....
Take the 51 out on the same trip....different results you will find:)
As to killing buffs with a single fighter...easily done, especially at the alts we all find buffs flying these days.
-
Does that mean realism cant be fun? Does that mean "interest" into a high realism game cant generate fun? If so, we better ask for sidewinders and proton torpedoes to make the MA funnier.
Sure realism can be fun....just not profitable:)
-
MANDOBLE:
Certain kinds of "fun" certainly outweigh "realism" for most of the player base. The next time you get shot down you can quit the game forever. This would be "realistic" but would probably compromise your fun.
The second point is that what you promote as "realism" is invariably a very poorly veiled attempt to make the game less realistic (let's pork gun range) to give your favorite aircraft an advantage that they did not have. A simulation that lets people practice shooting down thousands of aircraft is going to produce a lot of players that are excellent shots at long range. If you concentrate less on asking the designers to reduce the realism in their game and more on learning how to ruin a gun solution for those rare episodes when you inconveniently find an enemy player that has enough patience to actually catch your dora at an energy disadvantage, then you will probably be more content.
Hooligan
-
Hooligan, I can kill with D9 at 500 yards, even with high deflexion shots without spraying'n praying. No matter whether that is due my game experience or not, but I dont find that as any recreation of WWII kills.
-
I really didn't want the "unfair advantage to your plane" stink getting into this thread.. but since Hooligan opens the box..
The second point is that what you promote as "realism" is invariably a very poorly veiled attempt to make the game less realistic (let's pork gun range) to give your favorite aircraft an advantage that they did not have
Advantage they did not have... like ammo counters, right?
Or large white blob of a hitmark, rather than a quickly disappearing small impact flash, for machine gun rounds?
..
Mando didn't promote any realism. Me and Batz did.
Mando suggested neutering bullets and ballistics for purpose of gameplay closer to historic accounts.
Some might not find that attractive.. but hey, there's already selective realism, according to some people who explain AH as "more centered on gameplay than simulation". If it improves gameplay, then no problem whether or not it is unrealistic, right?
So, in that logic, Mando's suggestion is equally valid as any other - Purposely neuter the ranges to match historic accounts, eh? You say Mando is on selective realism which is wanting unfair advantages to planes that did not have them, but guess what, AH is already like that, so that's a non-issue. (Note: uh-uh, not by intent I truly believe. I don't support "conspiracies")
So which would sell better - a realistic ballistics with unhistoric gunnery, or unrealistic ballistics with a historical twist? I don't see why the latter won't have a good chance. Besides, people always flock to something that smells more historical. It would be a good attraction, don't you think?
Also, people will have hard time blowing things from 500, 600 yards, so many will be forced to fight harder to achieve actual kills. Yipes, sounds like the good ACM heaven some people want, doesn't it? Instead of the Bore and Zoom snap shot/sniping fights?
Nobody would ever want to take on a Spit9 or a N1k2 aggressively, when they know they will die as far as 500~600 yards out.. but if the gunnery is neutered like Mando suggests, then hey, we could try more aggressive fighting even in P-47s, P-51s, Bf109s and Fw190s.. with just about enough E advantage to stay 300~400 yards ahead of the Spit or N1K2... Instead of climb like an angel and secure a huge E-adv which will always pull us through more than 1k extension within 5 seconds - hence, "Bore and Zoom".
Sounds like good gameplay to me, wouldn't you think?
Or do you not like this one? Because it's unrealistic?
-
The simple fact is that we shoot a lot better than our WWII counterparts because we have thousands of times as much shooting experience than they did. Shooting in this game is actually VERY HARD. If you can remember what it was like to try to get a kill back when you only had 30 sorties under your belt, you will realize this was true. There is nothing historic about artificially neutering gunnery.
Nobody would ever want to take on a Spit9 or a N1k2 aggressively…
Well that statement is clearly wrong. I do that in whatever I am flying and I know plenty of people who do the same. If gunnery is neutered, Mandy will still “bore and zoom”, he will just do it with less risk. The “Bore and zoom” behavior will in fact probably increase. It is after all, a behavior chosen because it reduces risk and you are advocating reducing the risk even further. And somehow you want us to believe that it will discourage it?
So in answer to you question: I am interested in a combat flight sim. I want the pertinent aspects, i.e. weapon modeling, FMs and so on modeled as realistically as they can within the constraints of available computing power, programming resources etc... Also some things just aren't significant enough to care about: Maybe the landing gear retraction sounds are all wrong, and if they are I hope they don't spend a second's effort fixing them.
I think that neutering something that is accurate is an idiotic idea. I don’t want to see the gunnery or the FMs or anything else that falls in the realm of simulation dorked with to “enhance” game play. Enhancements to gameplay should come from changes to “game” aspects such as arena design, base capture, the AH2 system etc…
Hooligan
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Besides, people always flock to something that smells more historical. It would be a good attraction, don't you think?
Good point. If we just had an arena that had say an axis V allied setup and used actual terrain maps and shortened up icon ranges and stuff like that, people would just flock to that.
It'd soon outdraw the MA on the order of 20 to 1 or so, I'd think.
Because all that stuff that smells so much more historical is just more popular and attractive.
Oh. Wait a minute.
Selective Realism? So you want to get to your computer two hours early to brief for your interceptor mission, do a preflight and take off and patrol right? And, once in about every few missions you'll even expect to at least see enemy aircraft, right?
You guys. :D Figure it out; EVERYBODY is selective to some degree or another. HT has to be, the rest of us just are.
-
Hooligan: You pretty much stated the way we try to do things.
The only addition to your view has to do with task such as changing fuel tanks, start procedures of a plane. Controling mixture and such things, which realy do not effect combat.
HiTech
-
The simple fact is that we shoot a lot better than our WWII counterparts because we have thousands of times as much shooting experience than they did. Shooting in this game is actually VERY HARD. If you can remember what it was like to try to get a kill back when you only had 30 sorties under your belt, you will realize this was true. There is nothing historic about artificially neutering gunnery.
Thats non-sense. I have as much flying Fb this past year as i did flying ah. With similiar ballistics I am not able to kill consistantly above 450 yrds.
There are as many folks flying in HL as on Ah any night. I rarely ever get even pinged out side 300 yrds. The people playing that game have played since it Il2 was 1st released. The ballistics there arent "nuetered". Hissos are the same as here "hizookas". 50s shred just like here. The difference is range.
I agree with Hohun that it comes down to "how well you aim". Which isnt simple ballistics. I mentioned what I think it is but either way in Ah I find that the effective kill range is 450-550 yrds. Thats normal kill range. 800- 1k is above average.1k or more falls into "rare" but so are kills inside 250yrds.
If you are just comparing Ah to the 80% lethality that wbs had then you have a slanted view. Theres no mistake that in old wbs with not every bullet modelled and 80% lethality that the 50 cal were weak. In ah 50s are the best weapon in the game.
Besides when I was new (pre 1.04) It never took me 30 sorties to learn to shoot nor did I find it "hard" in any sense. What was hard was surviving but not getting bullets on target.
You may like/prefer AH as is but thats a far cry from saying thats the only way it can be. I dont care one way or the other but the "we are just that good" is bs.
I prefer the main to be a meat grinding furball. I like blowing things up but as I said I dont think long range gunnery relates much to "skillz".
-
I saw HiTech's post and wanted to see what he wrote. But hot damn Hooligan. You hit the nail on the head as to exaclty how I feel also. And it's gratifying to see HiTech say that is just what they try to do.
Although I could (well, do and will) quibble about some of the features they have put in, or are missing, and the general lack of any new "realism" features added to AH over the the past couple of years. My hopes lay with what cometh in AH II. AH-TOD or Classic matters not for it's more or less just AH, circa 1999-2002, with new graphics and canned missions in a new persistant arena then I'll be dissapointed. A lot.
All IMO this is.
-
Batz:
If you are saying FB is right and AH is wrong, then please provide some proof. HTC has been great about changing simulation aspects of the game when provided with hard data supporting the change.
If you are saying that you prefer FB because long range shooting is harder (regardless of whether this is accurate) then why don't you just fly FB?
And "learning to shoot" in AH doesn't count if you flew WBs for years before that. I think I got a kill my first AH sortie, but the gunnery skills I used came from hundreds of hours of practice in WB. Somebody who has never flown flight sims before doesn't have much of a chance of shooting somebody in AH before they've had hours of practice at it.
Hooligan
-
Tell me what you think I need to provide proof of?
That in ah effective kill range is longer then rl?
Even you said that but claim its all "skillz". I believe even Toad and HT said that as well.
Try reading the thread.
I said fb and ah have similiar ballistics. I said that in Fb without all the visual aids that effective kill range fits right in with rl pilot accounts and period training material.
I posted training manual that shows that atleast lw pilots were trained to get in close. Hohun and Tony also posted "proof" as well.
So tell me what proof do you need considering you already acknowledged that effective kill range is longer in ah then rl? I said I believe based on my own experience flying only lw planes that kill range is 450-550 yrds. Thats killing and being killed. In FB its around 250.
range counters, extremely visible tracers out at range, hit sprites and ammo counters and a simplified dm in ah are imo the cause of a longer effective kill ranges in ah.
These are mostly absent in fb. So 2 games with similiar ballistics have different results. In Fb my hit % is higher then it was in ah. My hits per kill is lower etc. All this is a product of getting in close. A hisso will still hurt you in Fb at d800 just as it will in ah. Just in fb the odds of getting hit at d800 are much lower.
Also as brady stated about his "talk" with pyro that atleast with the type 99 mk 1 somethings "wrong". How that translates to similiar rounds like the mgff or if any other round is effected is unkown. But to say "ah got it right" is a stretch. But this is besides the point.
You claim its all skillz.
Prove to me its "skillz". Where's your proof?
:rolleyes:
Its about how well you aim. Imo its much easier to "aim" in ah. As I pointed out I dont even need a gun site in ah.
I also said repeatedly I dont care if HT changes his game or not. I dont fly in main not because of "gunnery" but because of crappy gameplay. Even in my last post I said I dont care one way or the other.
-
And if FB dosn't model dispersion? And if it fires guns at exatly the same time, every bullet? Could these be less realist things that make gunnery artiflicilay difficult ?
HiTech
-
Well, after reading this thread for the last week or so, I figured I would chime in.
IMO, it is not the ballistics or gunnery that account for the difference between AH and Il-2/FB. It is ultimately the flight model which causes the difference in gunnery to appear between the two sims.
In AH:
The planes seem stable and minor variations in trim are easier to deal with.
In Il-2:
The planes are much more squirrely when trying to aim.
What it boils down to is that in Il-2, the planes bounce around more. Is this artificially put in to recreate the historic kill and hit distance? Hell if I know. Is AH wrong? Don't know, don't care. I have fun with both and kill stuff in both.
If you are that bothered by the gunnery in AH, you might want to think about whether AH is worth the $$$ to stay.
-
And if FB dosn't model dispersion? And if it fires guns at exatly the same time, every bullet? Could these be less realist things that make gunnery artiflicilay difficult ?
I dunno HT I only fly 109s firing just the hub cannon. Dispersion isnt something I worry about.
I am not sure what "fires guns at exactly the same time" means. Do you mean all guns share the same rof or say on a Jug each of the 8 50s fire bullets at exactly the same time?
I guess i can go find out.
I am not sure why it should make gunnery harder. Wouldnt no dispersion mean more rounds concentrated in 1 spot? I am not sure about the size of the "cone". Actually would it make lethal damage "easier".
I dont think Fb gunnery is "hard" and I dont have the nose bounce problem mathman says. Thats most likely stick scaling.
For example flying an f2 against a il2 field mod you need to aim at the oil cooler to make the best use of your ammo. If not unless you kill the pilot or disable controls the thing just doesnt go down. 3 or 4 hits to the oil coller starts a fire. You have to aim with a bouncy stick you most likely would never hit it.
-
Batz:
I don't have anything to prove to you and you don't have anything to prove to me.
But if you want HTC to change something, then you will have to prove it to them. It doesn't look to me like you have convinced them at all so far, so perhaps you should try a different tact, like providing some tangible proof. Personally I always like to see more hard data posted on the BBS. I'm looking forward to seeing what you provide.
As far as kill ranges being farther in AH than they are in real life. Well the real life pilots had very little practice compared to us and they didn't even know what range they were shooting at. This combined with other factors like stress (we aren't worried about dying, a luxury that real pilots did not have) these seem like more than an abundant explanation of the perceived and real differences to me.
Hooligan
-
Batz:
Dispersion does affect the hub cannon (not as much as wing guns of course). For a 200 meter target, in one game perhaps the hub cannon makes a 2 meter pattern at that range while the pattern may only be 3 centimeters in the other game (i.e. no dispersion).
6 wing-mounted 50's make a pretty huge cone of fire at 600 yards with dispersion. You're point of aim can be off by 5-10 meters and the dispersion cone is going to be so big that you will still get scattered hits. With no dispersion, if your aim is off you won't get hits.
Dispersion makes it much easier to hit at longer range, although the hits will be widely scattered and do much less damage than if they were concentrated due to a lack of dispersion.
Hooligan
-
I think the real problem with porking the ballistics just for the hell of it is that it would have a HUGE impact on the way this game is played.
Take two minutes and think about it. If the ballistics is messed with so it is literally impossible to kill people past a range of 400 yards or so, what will happen in the arena? Would it mostly effect the dogfighters or the Bore and Zoomers? I'm gonna go smoke while you think about it, back in five.
Ok, back. Now, lets think about it some more (don't worry, I didn't get it right away either). Here's the way my thinking went. Well, in a dogfight it won't effect you much, since you are usually closer than 400 yards anyway. Well, thats a good thing. Now... those stupid Bore and Zoomers that take 6-700 yard shots and then break off.. they wouldn't be able to bug me anymore, and they'd have to learn how to fight! Damn, another good thing... I'm all for this.
Hum... well, given the dweebishness of your average player, here is what I think would happen. If the gunnery was porked, it would have exactly the opposite effect I thought it would have at first glance. Instead of people learning how to fight, they'd learn how to hit a snapshot at 400 yards and run like hell, instead of trying to hit a snapshot at 700 yards and run like hell. And if it was made literally impossible to score hits at ranges past 400 yards, they'd be untouchable. In other words, the MA would become an even more boring place.
The only real "solution" to the "problem" of people scoring hits at "ahistorical" ranges, would be to remove range counters inside of d1.5 or so, and HT's already said that ain't going to happen. So I'd learn to live with it, it isn't that big a deal as far as I'm concerned.
-
Nah Urchin, that cant be implemented because it surely is a dark maneouver to improve the advantages of my D9 ...
-
As far as kill ranges being farther in AH than they are in real life. Well the real life pilots had very little practice compared to us and they didn't even know what range they were shooting at. This combined with other factors like stress (we aren't worried about dying, a luxury that real pilots did not have) these seem like more than an abundant explanation of the perceived and real differences to me.
And that, comes with a 'tangible evidence'?
So how would we measure the "skill differences" between real life WW2 pilots and us? By pure flight time? What "skill"?
By the "ballistics theory" of mid-long range gunnery of AH a la Toad, there isn't any 'skill' to be master anyway. The "dispersion" increases hit chance even more. Since AH planes are "on rails", you just center the sight smack top of the enemy and pull the trigger, and they will die. Point, and click, put enough rounds.. and then the dispersion will automatically it the target for you.
So..
What "skill?"
Skill of judging distance? No, we don't need that in AH.
Skill of fine tuning aim in conjunction against "target drift"? Not in AH, where combat-trim is available for everyone, and planes fly on rails.
Skill of concentration, so you can keep track of your rounds and decide when to fire and not? No, we have ammo counters doing that for us.
Skill of judging lead? Well, yes, this one is definately a skill-related issue. However, not relevant in this instance, where the discussion of 'hit ranges' usually revolve upon hitting conditions against something straight and level. (ie. quotations on Mr.William's "General Rule of Thumb" on gunnery effectivity)
Besides, even with those "more experience and skill" you people claim that we have, people usually suck in deflection shots in AH anyway. Funny how this one doesn't just increase with longer flight time.
No. I don't see any "skill" concerning mid-long range gunnery in AH. All I see is the "gun" factor and the "spray amount" factor, which in real life the former was never a concern for anyone, even in the country which had access to only inferior weapons, and the latter was a heavy burden for pilots without access to keep accurate track of their number of rounds fired.
"We're better than WW2 pilots because we have more experience?" No.. that doesn't sound right.
More like "We're better than WW2 pilots because we don't deal with what they had to deal with."
-
Kweassa, just how much flight time do you have? How much in WW2 aircraft of any type?
I see this "fly on rails" thing as if the writers think aircraft hop and wallow about the sky as if they are rabbits on LSD.
The only wandering aircraft I've flown have been a couple of homebuilts.
The reputable aircraft I've flown, particularly the WW2 aircraft, have ALL flown as if they were "on rails". They're very stable, extremely "hands off" trimmable and a pleasure to fly.
You've done an admirable job of winning friends and influencing people when HT did post in this thread. So maybe like Hooli said you should just fly IL; I don't think your approach has payed off here.
-
Ah.. is this the time to mention the 1.6 bomber guns? Attacking a bomber last night with a countryman. We are getting ready to go in. He (fortunately) has the attack from the rear position. I am coming in from the side.
The gunner opens up at 1.9 on him and he comments with a snicker on VOX.. "He opens up at 1.9"
I go..." that's ok.. you should be fine til you are well inside 1.6 at least.. they tested it extensively online.... no worries just wiggle a little"
Well at 1.6 he takes a pilot wound. He is less than amused with our test results. :)
Ah.. can I get some of these rails for my FWs? Mine like to "bounce" around some!
-
Ah Toad, Toad.
Let's not go there, because that's as low as it gets when it comes to discussing these sort of things - "hey, if you like brand X better, then just go play that"
IL2/FB is a different type of game from AH. AH has its own charms which no other game has(or at least, tried to match but failed). However, it does have a common point in that they both recreate the air combat of WWII.
I don't want to go and spend my time in IL2/FB. It has some fantastic good points, but AH, despite lacking in many things(at least, IMO), is what I ultimately choose over anything else.
What I want is to see AH become strongly reinforced and powered up in some of the aspect it lacks compared to IL2/FB - and as an IL2/FB player also, I wish the same with Il2/FB too, seeing the experienced professional touches AH gameplay influencing the currently bland nature of IL2/FB multiplayer sessions(IOW or VOW is nice, but it's just not AH!).
The competitive nature of the market always brings forth many contendors. Emphasizing the differences and unique qualities in each game is good, but as much, I figure better results can come from two contendors, or rather, two games which are oriented to simular goals when they learn and influence each other.
Looking back this long thread, I apologize to HT if those aspirations and wishes sounded rude and insensitive for the developer.
Though each responses revolving on feelings and the desire to convince the other has brought forth a heated debate, I think it wasn't all that bad. It was more than just complaints or whining, but a good chance to represent what some of the players think, opposed to what other type of players also think.
Your vision of what is good for AH maybe different, but ultimately, like you, I just want to see AH becoming better and better all the time, and it was a chance to express some of the thoughts I've had for a long time since I've started out with AHv1.5. So really, your "then go play that(.. and don't come here complaining)" comment was uncalled for! ;)
Anyhow, we still have AH2 coming, and from some of the info, I think maybe some of the issues me and Batz noted during this discussion, already might have been implemented, such as better DM and more realistic tracer smoke and etc..
I guess we'll just have to wait and find out.
But in the mean time, I would appreciate it if you really don't say things like "go play that, then". It's AH I really like. Please think it as jealousy and desire towards IL2/FB to see AH become even better.
..
carry on!
ps) .. nope no flight time in any plane. No training, I'm a complete layman. But Toad, how about you? Any stick time while actually pulling the trigger and feeling the burst of multiple guns vibrate your plane?
-
I gave it some thought.. what the 'target drift' mentioned before, might be.. There were some explanations from Hohun during the thread, but I failed to get an answer from Mr.Williams who first brought it up - wish he'd be back to clarify this.
Okay, so basically, this is what I imagine.
I'm thinking of something like what happens to a person holding up a bow or a gun in archery or shooting contests.
Basically, like mentioned by many other pilot accounts, I don't think the 'nose bounce' messing up aim is realistic. Or rather, upto a certain point.
Unless a plane is badly out of trim, or a sim depicting that aspect is wildly exaggerated, I wouldn't think moving the nose of one's plane to a certain general direction would cause the bobbing around - like, when you hold up your bow or a gun, your arm stays rock solid, you hold it firm. Your arms don't shake up and down like a scarecrow - which, in a simulated plane, would be equivalent of the nose bobbing up and down with each stick input.
But, in archery(I dunno about gunnery - guns out of special purposes are illegal in our country, and we don't have shooting ranges), what differentiates the expert marksmen and a poor marksmen is how long you can remain absolutely immobile as you aim and let go of the arrow.
When you aim a point, there are minor movements, shakes, trembling of your arms caused by many things such as tension and breathing. So, while the general direction of where you hold up and point your weapon lies pretty much immobile, minor and small movements still happen continuously, influencing your point of aim.
If you don't concentrate while holding up your weapon, you'll soon realize that the point where you are aiming at right now, has actually moved from your original targetting point. Very small movement, but significant enough to effect the outcome of the aim.
So, maybe the "target drift" mentioned, or issues on "flying on rails" is something like that..??
In the original IL-2, there admittably was difficulty in aiming through what Mathman has mentioned in this thread - the super sensitive trim issues kept attempts to keep the general heading of the plane itself unstable. Also, the high loss of E and generally low speed/acceleration of the planes, left fighters in IL-2 flying at pathetically low speeds - 1944 fighters, in general combat, were flying around at something like 300~400km/h.. slight contest of maneuvering often resulted in the planes going 200~220km/h. So these issues also made IL-2 gunnery very difficult, as planes destabilized more during near stall speeds.
However, most of those issues were corrected in the FB add-on. In general management and maneuvering, the feel of the planes became very simular to AH as a whole.
But the minor disturbances and movements during maneuvering remained - they are unnoticeable while just maneuvering, but at the moment where you start to aim, the very very small but continuous movement keeps 'drifting' the target around, and becomes a noticeable factor at the moment of opening up. Machine gun fire is pretty stable(I can hit up to 400 meters or so, even in FB, if I concentrate a lot, spray a lot, and the target flies straight and level), but the vibrations of cannons influence the 'minor movements' a bit more. Larger cannons, from 30mm and upper, have even more distinct effect while shooting.
If I remember correctly, the 'vibration' of the gunfire in AH does not influence the gunnery itself. I think it was a cosmetic feature added in where you feel it only in the cockpit as the 'camera' shakes, to give you an illusion that the platform you are flying, is shaking due to recoil. However, in FB, the shakes, aren't just the screen shaking, mimicking the recoil effect. It comes from the plane itself, which influences your aim if held on for too long.
So, basically, that is my answer to "flying on rails" in AH. I admit, this one is a lot of pure speculation.... so please correct me on this one. More references, experiences, clarifications, please.
-
The effect of recoil on the guns and aiming in AH is there. Flying a 6 gunned plane, I notice it a lot when a gun or two are damaged on one side of the plane. When you lose a gun or two or three on one side, there is a definite yaw input into the plane's flight. It is very apparent when flying straight and level. However, it is also easy to correct for when fighting.
-
Nope, no time actually shooting guns in WW2 aircraft. Significant amounts of time manipulating the stick and rudders in them however.
What's a Mustang weigh? What's the total ft/lb recoil of 6 Browning 50's? What's the force exerted on both the top and bottom of the wing of a Mustang doing 250 mph in level flight? (The guns are basically supported by attachment to the wing spar, either directly or indirectly right?) How would this change in say a 2 G pull?
I've talked to a lot of WW2 pilots. Some fighter pilots, some bomber pilots. I've yet to have one tell me the nose wandered or bounced uncontrollably while shooting. Vibration? Yeah? Moving the aircraft all around the sky? No.
My dad flew a B-25C in the Pacific with the 345th Air Apaches. 8 .50 BMG in the nose, two on each side of the cockpit in blisters. 12 forward firing .50BMG. He strafed A LOT.. that's what they did. Strafe airfields, strafe ships, strafe barges, strafe troops.
It looked something like this
(http://www.ajfroggie.com/pics/b-25.jpg)
He's never mentioned not being able to control the nose when shooting all 12 .50 BMG doing 280-300 on strafing runs. He did mention sound that would deafen you and some vibration in the airframe.
As for going or staying.. it's always the player's choice. But I think it's pretty obvious that you had an opportunity to discuss this stuff with HT and your first post was more in a "what the heck do YOU know about it anyway" mode than anything else. I'm not suprised at the results.
Didn't your grandmom tell you that you catch more flies with sugar than you do with vinegar?
Here's another one of granny's sayings... I think you fouled your own nest in this thread.
Good luck.
-
As for going or staying.. it's always the player's choice. But I think it's pretty obvious that you had an opportunity to discuss this stuff with HT and your first post was more in a "what the heck do YOU know about it anyway" mode than anything else. I'm not suprised at the results.
LOL!
You should have translated that one more literally, which is also the way which I meant it. I saw HT mentioning something like that twice so far. The first instance, he said:
"You shouldn't believe all they tell you"
and the second one was here in this thread.
...
So what does that mean? I truly wonder.
Does it mean HT's got some other info on how IL-2/FB manages their gunnery aspect? Maybe as a developer, he could instantly recognize something in IL-2/FB gunnery that was used, he decided not to use in AH? Something like maybe neutering bullets? Honking dispersion? Making bullets fade out?
He really did sound like he knew something what us players didn't know, so I ask "so what do you know that something we don't". If there was some other way to phrase that, sorry I couldn't - English ain't my first language.
I've seen threads in UBI forums on gunnery - only few were actually confirmed by the 1C crew themselves, but most usually the beta-testers of the game confirmed that individual rounds, ballistics, dispersion is all modelled as they should be, IFRC, the "bullet fade" was distanced, not timed like AH, I think it was 2km.
-
The effect of recoil on the guns and aiming in AH is there. Flying a 6 gunned plane, I notice it a lot when a gun or two are damaged on one side of the plane. When you lose a gun or two or three on one side, there is a definite yaw input into the plane's flight. It is very apparent when flying straight and level. However, it is also easy to correct for when fighting.
I've talked to a lot of WW2 pilots. Some fighter pilots, some bomber pilots. I've yet to have one tell me the nose wandered or bounced uncontrollably while shooting. Vibration? Yeah? Moving the aircraft all around the sky? No.
Duly noted.... but I was more kind of thinking of effects of recoil in terms of minor control - even when the guns are working perfectly symmetrically. As in the 'archery' or 'shooting rifles' thingy I used as an reference, I also don't think the whole nose of the plane would bounce or yaw around uncontrollably. But wouldn't there still be minor oscillations which would effect the flight of the plane, albeit smally, but also importantly?
Having it shake around in 'uncontrollable levels' would be fishy, but wouldn't that still mean the pilot needed to assert certain level of minor input and control all during aiming process? Maybe that process feels too easy in AH.
This is purely empirical, individual opinion, but in AH, let's say when the target is high left side of the gunsight, the pilot can bank left, pull stick, stop it and the ring and dot of the sight would be exactly where he wants it. The aiming process itself is extremely easy, its just where the pilot has to aim, that makes the difference. I don't expect the aiming process via stick control to be inexplicably hard as in nose bobbing up and down, but wouldn't it still need continuous minor control to place it down firm?
I know some of you have actual flight time in the skies - so if you, perhaps stick a gum in front of you in the windshield, is it possible to make just one input and let the plane hold its exact nose position, where the gum is placed over a certain reference point in the scenery, and it does not move at all? :confused:
If that is so, then I don't think there's anyway to explain the 'target drift' other than continuous wind and turbulence effecting your plane..
-
Unless the shooter and target are going in exactly the same direction, and this has to be extremely rare, then the target will drift in the shooter's gunsight. I certainly see this in AH and I assume that is what is meant by "target drift".
Hooligan
-
From an interview with Franz Stigler
Did pilots like the tracers or did some not use them?
Every third round was a tracer round and most pilots he new used them. However they were not used to aim. The tracer round always had less of an arc than the actual bullet. So if the pilot aimed using the tracers the bullets would all miss. A good pilot used the gun sight and always waited till they were at close range.
:p