Author Topic: Fixing HO in the game (Read 6680 times)

Bluedog · « **Reply #15 on:** June 26, 2001, 07:57:00 PM »

HOs dont just happen, you either make them happen, or let them happen.
Takes two to tango.

<S> Blue

[ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: Bluedog ]

DmdNexus · « **Reply #16 on:** June 26, 2001, 08:11:00 PM »

Only dweebs can't avoid head-ons consistently.

Only dweebs take head-ons consistently.

And dweebs are the loudest whiners about head-ons.

<tisk tisk> dweebs never learn how to fly beyond quake.

Nexus

Buzzbait · « **Reply #17 on:** June 26, 2001, 10:17:00 PM »

S!

The reason Headons are so lethal is that the accuracy of the AH weapons is way too high. Fix the dispersion and the whines about HO's would cease, as would the screams about C-Hogs.

Hangtime · « **Reply #18 on:** June 26, 2001, 11:15:00 PM »

Hang dodges two blazing high speed top-down B&Z passes.. but the sly and evil opposition refuses to try and slip in behind, declines the bait so tantilizingly close, and grabs back up to the stratosphere for another 'safe' B&Z swipe.... ACM 'scorecard' style in AH.

"C'mere, yah futzy dodgin alt monkey scorepotato mofo, I got somethin fer yah...."

Hang whips the pony around, lays on the trigger at d1.5, stokes the rockets button and drills in fer a frontal shot while rocket trails define the box the potato finds himself in.. *BOOM*

... take that, yah scurvy dipstick.. Muahahhahha! 'ol Faceful nails another one. Chit; someone get me a damn beer, this is fediddlein FUN!"

After all, flyin 'n dyin is part of the sim... the fun part is discovering all the neat ways to do it.

Just say YES to the HO's.

Toad · « **Reply #19 on:** June 26, 2001, 11:39:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Buzzbait:
S!

The reason Headons are so lethal is that the accuracy of the AH weapons is way too high. Fix the dispersion and the whines about HO's would cease, as would the screams about C-Hogs.

S!

Hail!

Greetings!

Salutations!

Hot Dogs!

Peanuts!

Popcorn!

Crackerjacks!

...and oh, yes. I distinctly remember HT and Pyro explaining that dispersion is modeled in AH.

I assume, from your above statement, that you have some sort of proof that it is incorrect?

Please post it so that we may all peruse your hypotheis and proof thereof.

S!

Farewell!

Goodbye!

Good Luck!

Adios!

AKHog · « **Reply #20 on:** June 27, 2001, 01:11:00 AM »

If you cant avoid a HO you suck and should stop playing.

-AKHog

Blix · « **Reply #21 on:** June 27, 2001, 01:28:00 AM »

For me, an HO is a rush....makes me shaky sometimes...that amount of "realism" is enough for me...the reason why I quote realism is simply because I have never been in an HO, never flown an actual warbird. so to me, dispertion, closure rate and all that jazz makes no difference to me.

Vermillion · « **Reply #22 on:** June 27, 2001, 07:58:00 AM »

The reason that HO's are more effective than in real life, has nothing too do with dispersion or speed. Its the icons. In real life its very difficult to judge closure rate, and range, in a head on attack. But with icons its quite easy. So then it becomes an issue of marksmenship and a high speed game of chicken.

That said, it takes two to HO. If you can't figure out how to avoid an HO, and come out with a superior position, go schedule some time with a trainer and I bet that in a single evening you will have it down pat. Its quite easy to avoid HO's once you learn the technique.

Hangtime, LOL!!

Believe it or not, but back in Warbirds I did just that. I was flying a heavy P-38L when a purp 190 decided he wanted a piece of me headon. I jettison'd my eggs, and was about to get rid of my rockets, when I figured "what the hell... I'll use them to scare him to death". So as we approached D1.8 I started to salvo the rockets two at a time towards him.

My second salvo hit him right behind the cockpit !

It was great watching him flutter down to earth with his entire rear fuselage and tail missing.

And there was much crying, moaning, and gnashing of teeth on channel 1 and on private. LOL!

Hamish · « **Reply #23 on:** June 27, 2001, 12:17:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Vermillion:
The reason that HO's are more effective than in real life, has nothing too do with dispersion or speed. Its the icons. In real life its very difficult to judge closure rate, and range, in a head on attack. But with icons its quite easy. So then it becomes an issue of marksmenship and a high speed game of chicken.

That said, it takes two to HO. If you can't figure out how to avoid an HO, and come out with a superior position, go schedule some time with a trainer and I bet that in a single evening you will have it down pat. Its quite easy to avoid HO's once you learn the technique.

Hangtime, LOL!! Believe it or not, but back in Warbirds I did just that. I was flying a heavy P-38L when a purp 190 decided he wanted a piece of me headon. I jettison'd my eggs, and was about to get rid of my rockets, when I figured "what the hell... I'll use them to scare him to death". So as we approached D1.8 I started to salvo the rockets two at a time towards him.

My second salvo hit him right behind the cockpit ! It was great watching him flutter down to earth with his entire rear fuselage and tail missing.

And there was much crying, moaning, and gnashing of teeth on channel 1 and on private. LOL!

LoL!

You Rocket Dweeb!!!!

I never could hit anything A2A with rockets

<S!>
Hamish!

[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: Hamish ]

Blix · « **Reply #24 on:** June 27, 2001, 12:18:00 PM »

LOL, Vermillion...if you would've got that on tape, I'd like to have that...lol...You ever hear the end of that ?

Buzzbait · « **Reply #25 on:** June 28, 2001, 12:00:00 AM »

S! Toad

Of course AH has dispersion modelled into the gunnery. The question is, how much?

All I know, is that all the first hand accounts I have read from pilots of WWII, reported 99% of kills as happening at way under the ranges which kills happen in AH. Read Hartmann, or accounts of Marseille's air to air fights, or any of a large number of U.S. and British Aces. And most of the kills were at small deflection angles. The exception would be a guy like Buzz Beurling, who could hit aircraft at 90 degree deflections. But even he set his convergence to 250 yrds. The lethality in this Sim is much more than historically we should believe.

Toad · « **Reply #26 on:** June 28, 2001, 12:19:00 AM »

!!
@!
#!
$!
%!
^!
&!
*!
(!
)!
_!
+!
=!
S!

Buzz, this discussion (about the gunnery) has been around since day one of Beta.

I'll bet if you search a little, you can find a few threads that will entertain you for hours while reading.

What you have just stated is what will be called "anecdotal" evidence if anyone bothers to get back into an old discussion.
Old pilot memoirs fall into that category.

That is, it's not likely to be considered legitimate proof of your position.

The gun range modeling, OTOH can be justified with existing empirical ballistic data.

So, wear yourself out if you like but this topic has been flogged.

Peanuts!
Popcorn!
Cracker Jacks!
Hail!
Farewell!
So long!

I'm outta here!

[ 06-28-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]

Buzzbait · « **Reply #27 on:** June 28, 2001, 02:47:00 PM »

S! Toad

You say their data is empirically based: On what? The perfect fluid enviroment with no wind gusts, no turbulence generated by aircraft, no vibration in the airframe generated by the guns firing? Methinks those ommissions are included in what the dispersion model here is based on. Which is why the hits are happening at long ranges.

A note about "Anecdotal evidence":

When the leading Ace of the War, says "Get up close, and when you think you are close enough, go in closer" (pardon my paraphrasing of Hartmann, I don't have his book handy) then you find it tough to understand what he is saying? When the discriptions of Han Joachim Marseille, the so-called 'Virtuoso of Fighter Pilots", is described as getting so close he almost collides with his targets, then you say this is irrelevant?

I think you better check where you put your slide rule, because it may be wedged up a certain orifice.

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #28 on:** June 28, 2001, 02:50:00 PM »

Buzzbait, the lack of icons in the real world is why they would get in extremely close so they were sure they couldn't miss.
-SW

Toad · « **Reply #29 on:** June 28, 2001, 03:11:00 PM »

S!

Hail!

Greetings!

Salutations!

Hot Dogs!

Peanuts!

Popcorn!

Crackerjacks!

Buzz, empirical as in THIS:
http://internet.cybermesa.com/~jbm/ballistics/calculations.html

Proven equations that give you repeatable, RL-verifiable answers. They also allow for atmospherics.

As oppposed to "back in the big war" non-specifics.

I think you'll get far closer to the truth with the equations than the memoirs.

But hey, if you like guns that only shoot 200 yds and have very little leathality there's games out there like that.

Enjoy.

Peanuts!
Popcorn!
Cracker Jacks!
Hail!
Farewell!
So long!