Let me put it this way: when Spitfires were first armed with two 20mm cannon, the RAF was annoyed because gun bay restrictions prevented them from converging the guns any closer than 300 yards - they wanted 200!
I'm afraid that long-range shooting seems to be one area in which sims remain unrealistic.
This, is probably the most powerful comment upon the problems of gunnery in AH(though it may be unintended.. don't worry Tony, won't drag you in if a flame war ever starts
)
Come to think of it, if shooting was as range sensitive as it were in real life many of the so-called "dweeb plane" accusations in AH would be dropped. The only planes that are accused as a "dweeb plane", due to purely powerful performance, is the La-7 and the P-51D. The La-7 virtually has no weakness in its element at low-alt, and the P-51D is mediocre in many aspects but just purely outruns everything else excluding handful few unperked planes such as La-7s or Typhoons.
All the other "dweeb plane" accusations mainly falls upon Hispano armed planes and the N1K2. Even with its uninspiring speed in the MA, if a Hispano armed plane can get within just 600 yards range a good shot will knock off something with those cannons. The N1K2 cannons aren't as good as the Hispanos, but it holds 900 rounds... 6 times the amount in 109s, and almost twice the amount in 190s. Lot of spray quality.
...
So, then, what is really the difference in AH and real-life that the results are so drastically different? Maybe the lack of overall tensions of combat? Lack of G forces a pilot feels?? But these are mostly human issues.
If AH uses real-life ballistics charts data for its guns, what could be the reason behind this in the perspective of simulation gaming? Somehow, I don't think the "we're better shots than WWII pilots" answer is very convincing. Feels more like a cop-out and a cheap attempt to blindly support AH.
The range icons? But IL-2 has range icons, too, and yet the distance required to "open fire" in IL-2 is about 200~300 yards shorter than AH. While many consider 400~500 yards adequate distance to start firing in AH, it is widely recognized among IL-2 gamers that in IL-2, generally the distance where you'd really expect to hit something is 200~300 meters. Maybe it's because IL-2 mostly features ShVAKs and MG151/20s, which is fired near 300 yards in AH, too?
Or maybe its because the hit sprites? In IL-2, the visual hit confirmations for MGs and cannons diminish in size according to range.. meaning when you fire from far away, it is a lot harder to see if you are hitting the enemy or not. Since people avoid shooting cannons in fear of wasting ammo above 300 meters range, and the machine guns hits are hardly confirmed over that range, maybe that's why they don't shoot out so far. In AH, you adjust aim, spray a bit, confirm the hits landing visually through hit sprites that are as large as golf-balls. Since you are sure you're landing hits, you adjust the aim again, and fire a bit more.. maybe..
Or maybe the damage modelling. I don't think I've ever seen a plane lose a single stab, except the P-38L(I lost only the left vertical stab once..), when I am pretty sure the trajectory of my shots fired landed in only one certain area of the plane. Also, in AH, any sort of "damage" causes instant destruction of the area.. if someone can get few pings in, it might knock off the entire wing, wing tip, or stabilizers so the plane is instantly off balance and dies out. This might promote the spray mentality to the people who become desperate as they see the enemy extending away 500~600 yards, since they know if a few cannon pings can go in they can kill it.
Or maybe the way how a "hit" is registered? I've heard AH uses the same sort of gunnery/hit modelling as IL-2 - no hit "boxes", hit must register on actual polygon to count. However, somehow, AH feels a lot lacking compared to IL-2. I've never seen an instance where the shots fired pass beside each fuselage of the plane due to firing at a range closer than convergence, in AH. In IL-2, I've seen this happen. I've also seen the cases where it feels "I've hit it" at the gunsight, with the target almost in dead center, but actually misses, with the tracers passing the target as if it is grazing the surface.. only aiming at an "exact" point will hit it. In AH.. the area of that invisible "point" to fire at seems much larger.... In AH, during scissors, with enemy plane swishing by in front of the gun sights, you can fire shots in between the scissors and expect to kill it. In IL-2, this is incredibly hard.
...
Or maybe it is because of all of the reasons above. Maybe that's why we can't just ask for a "realistic change" of one issue and get it - since it involves multiple reasons.
Anyhow, I'd like to know how other people feel about the long-range gunnery aspect of AH, and how it should be changed.. or maybe not changed at all. Kinda curious..
