PDA

View Full Version : Oleg and team.The guns effective range thing.



LLv26_Mikko
02-19-2004, 03:52 AM
Only thing that bothers me in game is the guns effective range. All that i have ever read about WWII pilots and gunnery they all give you only one conclusion that hitting effectivly beond 200m was pure luck. In game we can make hits that completly disable plane as far as 500m and bots like reargunners from 800m. So i would say that this is the most important thing that should be fixed. For exsample my personal record is PK from about 500m and in real it would have been a
1/1 000 000 shot.

Otherwise the game is very good. Thank you for that.

LLv26_Mikko
02-19-2004, 03:52 AM
Only thing that bothers me in game is the guns effective range. All that i have ever read about WWII pilots and gunnery they all give you only one conclusion that hitting effectivly beond 200m was pure luck. In game we can make hits that completly disable plane as far as 500m and bots like reargunners from 800m. So i would say that this is the most important thing that should be fixed. For exsample my personal record is PK from about 500m and in real it would have been a
1/1 000 000 shot.

Otherwise the game is very good. Thank you for that.

kweassa
02-19-2004, 05:50 AM
Maximum gunnery range where a skilled pilot could expect to effectively damage the target plane, was 200 meters max for fighters. 400 meters for larger targets like bombers.

Now, considering that the average gamer has more experience with in-game gunnery than real life pilot, we could assume that the effectivity of in-game gunnery could be tolerated anywhere between 1.5 to 2 times than it should be normally.

In that case, the ranges between 300meters~400meters, should be about the maximum range where one could expect to damage the enemy plane.

Now, when the effective gunnery range of a certain game goes over 400meters, it starts to become a huge problem.

Gameplay and realism quickly becomes separated, and it often starts to offer ahistorical advantages/disadvantages to certain planes.

Generally, as a rule of thumb, the longer the gunnery range, the tougher it is for the faster/less maneuverable planes. On the contrary, slower, better maneuvering, well armed planes start to show a distinct increase in effectivity.

Since the margin of safety for the faster, less maneuverable planes(which, is depicted in the game as advantage in acceleration and separation rates) decreases considerably, engaging a better maneuvering enemy plane quickly becomes very risky business.

For instance:

If a Bf109E-4 engages a I-16/tp24, when the gunnery ranges are historical, the tactical advantage lies with the E-4. The E-4 would be able to engage the I-16 more aggressively, and even if a certain mistake puts the I-16 behind the E-4, a few seconds of extension quickly pulls the E-4 over 200meters. The E-4 can dictate the fight much more comfortably - if the E-4 decides to lure the I-16 into a vertical, he needs to maintain just enough advantgae to consistently put the E-4 ahead of the I-15 by 200~300 meters.

However, when the effective gunnery ranges start to go over 400 meters, engaging the I-16 becomes a really sweaty experience for the E-4. The tolerance level for mistakes becomes very low. One single mistake that even remotely puts the I-16 behind the E-4 within 1000meters, and the E-4 can, and probably will, go down in flames.

With every tactical move, the E-4 needs to save more than twice the resident energy levels than it would have had to historically. It always has to remain extremely faster than the I-16, which will gurantee high separation speed, where the E-4 would rarely remain within 1000 meters of the I-16.

Naturally, the options quickly become limited, and the advantage in speed, acceleration, climbrate are much harder to utilize during combat - wheras, when gunnery ranges are longer than it should be, the plane which holds advantages in maneuverability usually manifests it immediately.

So, the only option left for the E-4, is to always be higher than the I-16 every engagement. Meet a I-16 coalt, and it's going to be a helluva time for the E-4 pilot. Meet a I-16 that's higher, and the E-4 is dead.

...


Usually, above is what happens with changes in gunnery ranges.

The developers thus, usually have three choices to counter the problem:

1) leave everything as it is
2) artificially neuter the effective gunnery range
3) add in more factors of realism which would effectively keep the gunnery efficiency down to historic levels

3) looks like a good choice, except, it's actually incredibly hard to implement such factors in a game. If the factors are too strong, solution 3) becomes no different from 2).

If the factors are too weak, it's ineffective, and people will still snipe planes away from some 500~600 meters.

...

It usually comes down to how determined the developers are, concerning this problem.

stef51
02-19-2004, 07:33 AM
For my very low 2cents, I was in a 109 once being "chased" by a I-153. The guy fired at me at 900 meters and the very first burst shot me down. Maybe lucky, maybe he used 1000 meters convergence, I don't know other than say that I agree with you guys. I read that Werner Molders found out in Spain that the maximum distance to fire was 80 meters for best accuracy. Granted, he was a novice at that time and it was the 109 D but small food for thought....

Stef

kweassa
02-19-2004, 07:45 AM
Empirically speaking,

if in a certain air combat game, you see a plane doing far better than its reputation, nine times out of ten, it's the effective gunnery ranges that cause the problem. I've seen this problem, and the consequential debate springing from it, from almost every WW2 vintage aircraft game to ever support multiplayer games.

SeaFireLIV
02-19-2004, 09:20 AM
Excuse me, but are we talking about UNLIMITED ammo here? The only time I saw extreme range hits was when I accidentally got onto an UA server kept being blown apart from apparently nowhere. I soon left when I realised my mistake!

If Limited Ammo, then I would say it`s very hard to hit at such ranges. Most of the time you wouldn`t open fire because of the ammo wastage, even if you got a kill from a prolonged burst at long range that would probably be it- out of ammo.

It seems to me FB is very well judged. I have managed a hit a couple of times from long range (about 700m I think), but he was still and steady and I had to compensate from the drop of the bullets. Even then it was just a lucky hit after careful aim and he wasn`t avoiding, it certainly wasn`t a kill. You have to get close (250-100) to get a kill without using up all ammo. I don`t see the problem unless you`re using unlimited and in that case you shouldn`t complain.

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/LAlowblue.jpg

clint-ruin
02-19-2004, 11:11 AM
If someone wants to spend the ammo taking lower probability shots, let 'em.

There are oft quoted references to USAAF/USN pilots killing Japanese aircraft from extreme ranges, 600 yards and above. That's about 550 metres. The Golodnikov interview people like to link has a reference to a single shot from an M4 cannon destroying a Bf109 in a head on pass at extreme range. It's quite widely known that long range shooting can be done by professionals, what we're arguing about is the likelyhood of a hit.

I think the two key factors - both of which are missing from FB - are bullet drift due to wind and real world visibility issues which would tend to prevent very long range shooting. Even if they were present, though, they would not outright stop long range shooting, just make it less likely to hit a target.

To me it sounds as if people just don't want to pay for letting an aircraft get behind them and holding course long enough for the enemy to correct aim. It's something that works to the advantage of all players.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

02-19-2004, 07:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Excuse me, but are we talking about UNLIMITED ammo here?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Definately not.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If Limited Ammo, then I would say it`s very hard to hit at such ranges. Most of the time you wouldn`t open fire because of the ammo wastage, even if you got a kill from a prolonged burst at long range that would probably be it- out of ammo.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, that's normally what one would expect. And some 700~800 meters are definately rare cases. But give me a ShKAS, or a nose mounted ShVAK, and I can hit 400~500 meter shots. Give me six .50s on the P-51D, and I can damage the target plane upto 500 meters.

And the good part of this is, I'm not a crackshot. I average in about at only 5~6% hit rates at closer distances.

It is a strange thing to see, that while the effective gunnery range has increased greatly since the original IL-2 days, nobody hardly mentions this as a problem. This is probably the first thread I ever saw in here, which specifically mentions this issue.


...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>There are oft quoted references to USAAF/USN pilots killing Japanese aircraft from extreme ranges, 600 yards and above. That's about 550 metres.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Often"?

Compare the frequency of anecdotes which urges the pilot to get in close, then closer, with the "oft quoted 600yard shots" - you'd see quoting unlikely instances are hardly an issue of relevance here. I've even heard of testimonies ranging between 800yards to 1000yards, that hit the enemy and critically damaged it. Oh yes, within 1000yards is ballistically, technically very possible. But the probability is extremely low. The two instances that I've seen of 800yard and 1000yard shots, doesn't mean I'm gonna confuse the possibility with the probability.

(besides, one can always quote Sakai from the same theater - "I see them shooting madly beyond me from 500meters, and think to myself, keep wasting ammo you fools")


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It's quite widely known that long range shooting can be done by professionals<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's the first time I've ever seen someone claim so. Since none of the 'professionals' I've ever read of ever shot from those distances. Quite contrarily, the 'professionals' of all countries in all theaters made it a strict habit to shoot from very close ranges. It was always the clandestine average nameless Joe with a one-in-a-million lucky shot, who left amazing records extreme long range gunnery in the archives. At least, that's what I've seen so far.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>To me it sounds as if people just don't want to pay for letting an aircraft get behind them and holding course long enough for the enemy to correct aim. It's something that works to the advantage of all players.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a reasonable assumption. But you have to understand, that the line that differentiates "mistake" and "tactic" becomes very transparent when average gunnery ranges are so long.

Upto what distances, should the pilot consider "reasonable and safe"? Clearly, the distance requirements become a lot longer than real life when things are so - which also means, the margin of energy difference which needs to be saved, becomes larger.

If in real life one might be tempted to use, let's say something like 70% of energy in offensive maneuvers, and save 30% for the exit phase, if the average gunnery ranges are longer in the game, one needs to save at least 60% for safe exit, and can use only 40% for extension.

Imagine a fight between a I-16 and a La-7. The I-16 comes in with something like 1000 meters of alt advantage. Would the La-7 pilot feel troubled if it was in real life? I wouldn't think so. He knows the difference in speeds is extreme. Make a few evasives to to bring down the disparity in energy levels, and then, when the I-16 tries to get behind, start accelerating away from it and leave the I-16 in the dust.

Not so in a game with longer range gunnery - if the I-16 using alt advantage, can get even momentarily within 500 meters of range, then he has a very good chance of damaging the enemy plane, or forcing him into hard evasives, which lets the I-16 catch the target.

...

Thus, as said in the previous post; empirically, when the typical "inferior plane" which is known to be very maneuverable, but a lot slower, is doing a lot better than expected - it's usually the effective gunnery ranges that does the trick.

clint-ruin
02-19-2004, 07:35 PM
Hi Kweassa,

I don't think we're actually disagreeing over much here, you seem to have determined a particular meaning from my words and taken it as a point of disagreement.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kweassa1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
There are oft quoted references to USAAF/USN pilots killing Japanese aircraft from extreme ranges, 600 yards and above. That's about 550 metres.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Often"?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oft quoted - it is cited a lot. This is different to something that occurs often. I would be surprised to find that the percentage of kills from that range would get near double digits at all.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Compare the frequency of anecdotes which urges the pilot to get in close, then closer, with the "oft quoted 600yard shots" - you'd see quoting unlikely instances are hardly an issue of relevance here. I've even heard of testimonies ranging between 800yards to 1000yards, that hit the enemy and critically damaged it. Oh yes, within 1000yards is ballistically, technically very possible. But the probability is extremely low. The two instances that I've seen of 800yard and 1000yard shots, doesn't mean I'm gonna confuse the possibility with the probability.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's funny, coz that's pretty much what I seem to remember having typed :&gt;

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
(besides, one can always quote Sakai from the same theater - "I see them shooting madly beyond me from 500meters, and think to myself, keep wasting ammo you fools")
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To be honest I would say the same thing about pilots doing that in FB. If they want to take such a low probability shot then let 'em. In a chasing scenario - particularly past 500m when one aircraft is pulling away from another - I would think it quite simple to defeat having a bead drawn on you, even with a slight roll. Perhaps there are such experts flying around online who can account for a direction of rolling movement before the target even makes it, but if they can do that and smack the target then they probably deserve the kill :&gt;
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It's quite widely known that long range shooting can be done by professionals<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's the first time I've ever seen someone claim so. Since none of the 'professionals' I've ever read of ever shot from those distances. Quite contrarily, the 'professionals' of all countries in all theaters made it a strict habit to shoot from very close ranges. It was always the clandestine average nameless Joe with a one-in-a-million lucky shot, who left amazing records extreme long range gunnery in the archives. At least, that's what I've seen so far.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you are putting words in my mouth - don't know if you mean to.

Can an olympic marksman take shots with a pistol from across a hall and hit? Quite probably so. Would they if they had a better opportunity to shoot coming up? Probably not. If they felt they had to to save their life, would they? Ah..

Don't confuse capability with likelyhood.

If you think that this is a real real bad issue - my recommendation is to use FB's stats logger on a track file of you taking shots at various ranges against friendly aircraft and tell us your best and worst hit percentages / rounds required for an actual kill.

If what we see is truly out of the ordinary I am sure Oleg will at least let us know if it's fixable.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

VW-IceFire
02-19-2004, 09:09 PM
I don't kill anything over 300 meters. I don't even consider firing then...if I can hold off then I do. Any kills I've made over that range are generally snap shots made because I have to or I'm targeting a bomber very precisely (which rarely happens).

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
The New IL2 Database is Coming Soon!

WUAF_Badsight
02-19-2004, 10:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
If Limited Ammo, then I would say it`s very hard to hit at such ranges. Most of the time you wouldn`t open fire because of the ammo wastage, even if you got a kill from a prolonged burst at long range that would probably be it- out of ammo.

It seems to me FB is very well judged. I have managed a hit a couple of times from long range (about 700m I think), but he was still and steady and I had to compensate from the drop of the bullets. Even then it was just a lucky hit after careful aim and he wasn`t avoiding, it certainly wasn`t a kill. You have to get close (250-100) to get a kill without using up all ammo. I don`t see the problem unless you`re using unlimited and in that case you shouldn`t complain. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

excuse me but ............... TOTAL CRAP

the only gun i dont go for over 400m hits are the Mk108 & the T9 in the Cobra

getting 600m hits is not rare

clint-ruin
02-19-2004, 11:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:

excuse me but ............... _TOTAL CRAP_

the only gun i dont go for over 400m hits are the Mk108 & the T9 in the Cobra

getting 600m hits is not rare<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find that odd that those are your picks.

The M4/T9HE combo of the P-39 is accurate to amazing ranges, same as the MK103 and NS37/45. Provided the target doesn't shift around too much you're looking at 600/700m hits with a bit of practice.

The MK108s spread [and 800m cutoff issues] prevent it from being near the top of the list for long range shooting capability as far as I'm concerned so I'd agree with that one.

The other factor in the Sakai quote provided in Kweassas post .. other than the P-39 [any others?] the US was using wing-mounted gun planes. Unless the pilots shooting at him from 500m had their convergence set to 500m+, the probability of him being hit from that range is really, really low.

The UBs are the other nice long range guns, but it's very cheap to use it as one. Should really be fixed sometime.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

02-19-2004, 11:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Oft quoted - it is cited a lot. This is different to something that occurs often.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, sorry for it then. I misunderstood.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>To be honest I would say the same thing about pilots doing that in FB. If they want to take such a low probability shot then let 'em.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the problem part. It's actually not that "low probability" as one may think.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In a chasing scenario - particularly past 500m when one aircraft is pulling away from another - I would think it quite simple to defeat having a bead drawn on you, even with a slight roll. Perhaps there are such experts flying around online who can account for a direction of rolling movement before the target even makes it, but if they can do that _and_ smack the target then they probably deserve the kill :&gt; <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mmm.. you're right, but that's a little bit different scenario in my opinion. Simular, but subtly different.

Imagine this: the problem usually comes when a slower enemy plane lands behind you at 300~400 meters or so. You are in a faster plane with more powerful acceleration - you are slowly pulling away from the enemy.

Now, as you would agree, tactically, that's a mistake for the pilot no matter what. The enemy plane is behind at a very awkward distance, and the pilot should have tried to avoid that situation.

But the distinct advantages of being in a plane that has superior acceleration and speed, is the fact that your chances of survival when forced into bad odds, is a lot higher than the slower plane.

And it is in that case, the advantages fail to manifest - any jinking around that would provide enough evasion, will allow the enemy plane behind you to catch up. Frankly, in that distance, the fact that you are at least 100 meters further than the maximum distance a real-life WW2 situation would account for being damaged, should be enough for the pilot to assume "I'm more or less safe now".

But not so in the game. When an enemy plane lands behind you at 300meters, and sees you are slowly pulling away from him.. 300, 320, 340.. he will attempt to shoot you down. And the probability of being critically damaged, when you are pulling away from him at that distance, is relatively high. Thus, the range in question, is not necessarily 500 meters and over. But rather, the whole range between from 300, 400 meters up to 600~700 meters, is in doubt.

So the scenario is more like: You are faster than the enemy behind you. You are pulling away from him. The enemy is behind you further than historical 'killing ranges'. It would take about 10 seconds for you to extend the distance from the initial 300 meters distance to more than 700 meters. Now for the duration of that whole 10 seconds, do you have to start jinking around, risking loss in E that might lead the enemy to catch you - when after all, you are likely more than 100~200 meters further than historical "danger zone"?

It's not only FB that has this problem. Pretty much the same in all the games I've seen.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If what we see is truly out of the ordinary I am sure Oleg will at least let us know if it's fixable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's also a part of the problem. Determining which exact factors would effect gunnery is actually pretty difficult. And for that reason, IMO, people need to share thoughts on why some things continue to manifest itself in a different manner than expected in reality - before we can request, urge, or draw attention for the developers. Sort of a 'consensus' thing, you know.

02-19-2004, 11:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The M4/T9HE combo of the P-39 is accurate to amazing ranges, same as the MK103 and NS37/45. Provided the target doesn't shift around too much you're looking at 600/700m hits with a bit of practice.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

clint, I really think that what you've written above, shows exactly what the problem is; "600/700m hits with bit of a practice"

Now, admittably, technically, the powerful cannons have considerably longer effective hitting ranges than mere machine guns. And there are some quotes on how MK108s were used from longer than 300~400 meters distance against large targets like bombers.

But should we assume, despite more practical experience in gunnery than the average real life pilot, that a game pilot should be able to hit targets out to 600, 700 meters with a "bit of practice"?

Personally, I find it quite alarming that people can, and will, attempt such shots with guns that have such low ammo load - because, unless he's a newbie who doesn't care about ammo load, it means that the probability of such long ranges shots connecting is high enough for the more experienced gamer to make a judgement that it's a worthy try against an extending enemy plane. Frankly, that's quite outrageous IMO.

BBB_Hyperion
02-20-2004, 12:20 AM
800 m to 1km i though it should be save. 1 Single Burst of a La7 ripped my D9 wing off. Ripped it of not scratched it. Same happend to me from YAKs UBs
cannons not with Wing off but Engine or Pilot kill. This are no rare events anymore happen quite often. On the other side i can shoot and hit back at 800m with mg151/20 but the results of this hits are rather weak. I read somewhere about a long range shoot of 1 km vs a German bomber with yak9 37 mm (Bad Arc must be hell of a shoot)when i remember right.
So its not impossible to hit. But Still questionable if the Input devices on a PC give such precision at all to allow it.

Regards,
Hyperion

MandMs
02-20-2004, 02:22 AM
Tell me how one gets a hit at say 800m when convergence is set to less than 200m?(bullets are now diverging - the closer the convergence point, the more the divergence) This is for wing guns.

As for long range hits with fuselage guns, one has to ask how the EA could be seen because allowance must be made for trajectory and the weapon type(raise nose).

RL convergence was much greater than what we use generally in FB.



I eat the red ones last.

WWMaxGunz
02-20-2004, 02:22 AM
200m is a bit short to call maximum effective considering that point harmonization ranges for whole Allied squads would be 800ft on average, that's 250. Yeah you want to engage closer if you can because it will take much less ammo to do much more damage. If you are hitting seat or engine armor then 100m range may be the difference between hitting and penetrating.

It's different in the game partly because there's peoploe who have spent 100'd of online hours getting in target practice on DF servers doing shots no real life pilots would think of in situations no real life pilots would have even wanted to be in. You get enough practice and you get really good. HOW MANY online pilots are there who can't get good hits even close up? HOW MANY posts and threads are on this board alone about the guns not being effective enough at close range? And 99.9% of the time it's the poster who is at the disadvantage in their favorite plane or in any plane on their favorite side.

200m max? In what part of the war and what planes? A 109D? Oh wow. Yeah, I wouldn't expect something with 6, 8 or 12 freaking MG's to be effective out any farther than a 109D! And certainly not a 190 even without gunpods. The I-16 has a lot of guns in the nose and each has how much rate of fire?

You put enough high velocity lead and steel out and you get more effect at longer ranges. Yeah I do agree that 800m is extreme short of cannon and then even for 20mm but it should be possible. At alts over 7km I'd expect it more often than below 4km as well if air density on bullet drag is in there. It shouldn't be normal but then the people on many servers are far from normal so I wouldn't judge the sim by what you get on the servers.

there is also the issue of stability of the planes as gun platforms, especially during maneuvers. The I-16 IRL had to be flown careful with regards to pitch changes, one nickname it had was Russian for Mule because it was stubborn and kicked. With the right techniques though it was deadly and deserved it's real name of Hawk.

If yer gonna hit an I-16 from the rear then go in with a high delta-V and pull up after you shoot to put vertical distance between you. 50kph faster is NOT high delta-V either.


Neal

LEXX_Luthor
02-20-2004, 02:52 AM
Yeah in Korea there was some dude who regularly punched out MiGs at 1000m range or something and his squadmates wondered how and he explained to them it was cos at 10km the air is so thin the bullets go twice as far and don't slow down as much for a given range.


__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.
:
you will still have FB , you will lose nothing ~WUAF_Badsight
I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait... ~Bearcat99
Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age ~ElAurens

clint-ruin
02-20-2004, 03:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kweassa1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>To be honest I would say the same thing about pilots doing that in FB. If they want to take such a low probability shot then let 'em.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the problem part. It's actually not that "low probability" as one may think.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Personally I think that if someone puts the time in to perfect long range gunnery - and it's one of many, many things a pilot could choose to do with their time - they should be rewarded for that effort.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In a chasing scenario - particularly past 500m when one aircraft is pulling away from another - I would think it quite simple to defeat having a bead drawn on you, even with a slight roll. Perhaps there are such experts flying around online who can account for a direction of rolling movement before the target even makes it, but if they can do that _and_ smack the target then they probably deserve the kill :&gt; <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mmm.. you're right, but that's a little bit different scenario in my opinion. Simular, but subtly different.

Imagine this: the problem usually comes when a slower enemy plane lands behind you at 300~400 meters or so. You are in a faster plane with more powerful acceleration - you are slowly pulling away from the enemy.

Now, as you would agree, tactically, that's a mistake for the pilot no matter what. The enemy plane is behind at a very awkward distance, and the pilot should have tried to avoid that situation.

But the distinct advantages of being in a plane that has superior acceleration and speed, is the fact that your chances of survival when forced into bad odds, is a lot higher than the slower plane.

And it is in that case, the advantages fail to manifest - any jinking around that would provide enough evasion, will allow the enemy plane behind you to catch up. Frankly, in that distance, the fact that you are at least 100 meters further than the _maximum_ distance a real-life WW2 situation would account for being damaged, should be enough for the pilot to assume "I'm more or less safe now".

But not so in the game. When an enemy plane lands behind you at 300meters, and sees you are slowly pulling away from him.. 300, 320, 340.. he will attempt to shoot you down. And the probability of being critically damaged, when you are pulling away from him at that distance, is relatively high. Thus, the range in question, is not necessarily 500 meters and over. But rather, the whole range between from 300, 400 meters up to 600~700 meters, is in doubt.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that when you're being chased you should focus on one of two things, or both if you're in a vastly superior plane [superior in speed/accel/climb].

a) manouvers that cause minimal energy loss - rolls are a good example, using the planes own wings/lift vector rather than elevators to change your course and prevent shots landing on you.

b) combat climbing - fast [fast speed rather than rapid altitude gain] climbs, making any attempt to bead you very costly in E for the pursuing aircraft. Attempts by the enemy to line up a gunsight with you will simply cost them more energy and get you out of range faster.

Since you've been posting here a while I presume you're familiar with both of these tactics.

Long range shooting can require vast amounts of lead to be pulled, as well as accurate anticipation of where the target is likely to move to. For an example - reducing this to a 2 dimensional problem to make it easier - each horizontal degree of lead at 500m range represents 10x the actual distance the same lead represents at 50m [sorry if I've got the math wrong, it has been a very heavy coffee day].

If you are getting whacked at long range it is the result of one of two things. Either the shooter is firing off rounds willy nilly and is scoring a lucky, and probably unrepeatable hit. These hits are less avoidable, but also less to worry about - lower velocity speeds of impact, and the chances of getting tapped more than once is very low. The second way you could be getting hit is because you are holding course for such a long time that the enemy can draw a pixel perfect bead on you, and correct for it after their first shots miss if need be. This is something you should definitely anticipate and try to counter by changing course. You don't need to change course by a lot - a couple of degrees change in course is generally all you will need to do.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
So the scenario is more like: You are faster than the enemy behind you. You are pulling away from him. The enemy is behind you further than historical 'killing ranges'. It would take about 10 seconds for you to extend the distance from the initial 300 meters distance to more than 700 meters. Now for the duration of that whole 10 seconds, do you have to start jinking around, risking loss in E that might lead the enemy to catch you - when after all, you are likely more than 100~200 meters further than historical "danger zone"?

It's not only FB that has this problem. Pretty much the same in all the games I've seen.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I've already mentioned my perspective on this - it is probably a hard thing to represent accurately in a simulator, short of nerfing rounds/accuracy to a-historical levels. If a MG151/20 round was considered aimable to 800m it makes sense for that round to have an effective range of 800m. If a Browning M2 was effective to 1200m and it's effective to that range in game, then I don't see there being anything really wrong with that. We start getting into slightly more voodoo related effects to simulate why such a shot would be undesireable in real life - unpredictable wind enroute to the target, and visibility issues that would quite likely prevent a pilot from being able to correct their aim to hit. I can't think of any really consistent or good way to do this, and probably neither could Oleg, which is why it's not in FB :&gt;

The second part I mentioned is that this is not a one sided advantage only to the defending player. An FW190 can open fire in their dive on an I-153 long before any WW2 pilot would have considered doing so, giving the low-energy state target absolutely no chance to turn around and counter the attack.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If what we see is truly out of the ordinary I am sure Oleg will at least let us know if it's fixable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's also a part of the problem. Determining which exact factors would effect gunnery is actually pretty difficult. And for that reason, IMO, people need to share thoughts on why some things continue to manifest itself in a different manner than expected in reality - before we can request, urge, or draw attention for the developers. Sort of a 'consensus' thing, you know.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
[/quote]

Yeah, I guess we'll see if Oleg is up for making any chances this late in the game [no pun intended]. One thing I think would probably help is for you to have a go at making the kind of shots we're talking about yourself. Outside of the extraordinarily powerful guns in the game [30/37/45mm], it's not actually all that easy to do, especially if the target is not interested in being hit. Even against the very large guns, it's something I think is quite easy to counter - those 600/700m shots only happen for me if the target is unaware of me, or if it's large enough not to be able to get out of the way quickly.

BBB_hyperion wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
800 m to 1km i though it should be save. 1 Single Burst of a La7 ripped my D9 wing off. Ripped it of not scratched it. Same happend to me from YAKs UBs
cannons not with Wing off but Engine or Pilot kill.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think what you are experiencing is much more of a damage model issue for the FW190 series as a whole than a gunnery issue. Multiple tracks of 2-round de-wingings have been posted and it's a known issue, to be resolved in the FB Ace expansion.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

SeaFireLIV
02-20-2004, 03:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:


It seems to me FB is very well judged. I have managed a hit a couple of times from long range (about 700m I think), but he was still and steady and I had to compensate from the drop of the bullets. Even then it was just a lucky hit after careful aim and he wasn`t avoiding, it certainly wasn`t a kill. You have to get close (250-100) to get a kill without using up all ammo. I don`t see the problem unless you`re using unlimited and in that case you shouldn`t complain. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

excuse me but ............... _TOTAL CRAP_

the only gun i dont go for over 400m hits are the Mk108 & the T9 in the Cobra

getting 600m hits is not rare<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did I not say about 700??
I dunno under what rules, settings you play, but I have flown IL2/FB a long time and I do not find this ease of hitting targets at long range. I usually play full, real settings with only map on. Maybe you play with icons, etc. So, sorry, Badsight, but TOTAL CRAP!

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/LAlowblue.jpg

BBB_Hyperion
02-20-2004, 04:52 AM
I agree FW DM may be a part of it but for BF its engine or PK lately FW doesnt tend to have Pilot kills except from B17s. Does BFs have CDM ? dont think all have when at all. But its intresting enough that when you have trouble to hold climb and angle steady that on the other hand long range shoots are so easy. As you already discribed how precise the aim must be and little angle change should draw em off. I think this Bullets are still send in Packets that increases
the hit % but also the miss rate.So mostly you miss then but when 1 Packet hits it hits right.
Aiming with high velocity Fuselage guns helps to increase hitrate too cause of the flatend trajectory and less conjunction to convergence range except of elevation. Its not possible to calculate all bullet trajectories accurate that would cut in performance badly special for online play. I found out so far hits on Lagging Planes show effect when lag ends. For example a Plane show Localy steady flying you shoot it and hit but no effect. Then it resyncs and shows it in a turn and losses a wing or something. That could be another point when range increases calculation could be tuned down to save performance. Also Update Frequency netspeed may play a role in this. As well as GFX Settings some play on small resolutions to have big dots.
For the Input devices precision i can hardly get topspeed with my stick but with another one more expensive its possible. So we have a lot of Input variables that have not much to do with the aim itself but can influence the result highly.

Regards,
Hyperion

MandMs
02-20-2004, 05:40 AM
clint

MG151/20, inner wing mount, Fw190 (RL numbers)

shell flight:
max height above sighting line = 82cm
sighting line intersection pts = 135m, 550m

At 700m the shell would near to 2m(6') below the sighting line AND diverging from the convergence pt. of 600m. At 800m the shells would be ~1m(3') apart.

For the MG131, max height was 57cm, with the crossover points at 30m and 400m. At 600m the shells would be over 2.5m(7.5') below the sighting line. **

ps. ** and dropping rapidly.

I eat the red ones last.

[This message was edited by MandMs on Fri February 20 2004 at 08:27 AM.]

02-20-2004, 08:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>200m is a bit short to call maximum effective considering that point harmonization ranges for whole Allied squads would be 800ft on average, that's 250.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not according to Emmanuel Gustin and Tony Williams. The '200m/400m maximum' rule of thumb, is not something out of my mouth.

Also, Tony specifically mentions, that the pilots of the RAF were discontent when the new policy of convergence ranges were shortened down to 200~250yards - they wanted it even shorter than that still!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Yeah you want to engage closer if you can because it will take much less ammo to do much more damage.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Engaging in closer, was not a 'want' issue. It was a necessity.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It's different in the game partly because there's people who have spent 100'd of online hours getting in target practice on DF servers doing shots no real life pilots would think of in situations no real life pilots would have even wanted to be in.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahh thank you. I was waiting for someone to come up with that argument.

Think about this: how much 'skill' would a real life pilot need, to put their gunsights upon a 400meter target and start pulling the trigger? The enemy is extending away in almost a staight line, maybe a slight bank or jink according to the situation. You center him in the middle of the gunsight. Give a little correction according to the distance you think, and then, you start pull the trigger.

How much skill does one need to do that?

The 'gamers are more experienced in gunnery' argument applies only to a maneuvering situation. Not shooting at a target extending away in front of you at 400~500meters.

Ofcourse, the experience gamers gain, could help them in such a situation in a way for instance, they might be able to correct their aim a bit faster than real life pilots. But essentially, we're talking about long range, distanced shots here. Not about gunnery while maneuvering, which, is where the skill factor really starts to make a difference between real-life and games.

People are putting in shots regularly. As mentioned, yes, the 800m~1000m shots are rare. It's a very long range, even within the game. But the problem is, as noted in previous posts, the "questionable ranges" between 300meters and 700meters.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> You get enough practice and you get really good. HOW MANY online pilots are there who can't get good hits even close up? HOW MANY posts and threads are on this board alone about the guns not being effective enough at close range?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, the gunnery situation is different. At close ranges, if the targeted plane's not stupid, he starts moving around. Difference in skill, amount of practice, shows in those situations. Particularly with defelction shots. That's where experience manifests itself.

Shooting against a target that's 400~700meters away from you, is a different story.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> And 99.9% of the time it's the poster who is at the disadvantage in their favorite plane or in any plane on their favorite side.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could be. But that doesn't mean there are no problems with anything mentioned.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>200m max? In what part of the war and what planes? A 109D? Oh wow. Yeah, I wouldn't expect something with 6, 8 or 12 freaking MG's to be effective out any farther than a 109D! And certainly not a 190 even without gunpods. The I-16 has a lot of guns in the nose and each has how much rate of fire?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, not according to Williams or Gustin. High velocity, flat trajectory weapons do possess advantages in longer ranges. But somehow, contrary to your analogy, the longer ranges were never considered acceptable in any type of gunnery situation. In short, it never was a factor to be considered in the first place.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> You put enough high velocity lead and steel out and you get more effect at longer ranges. Yeah I do agree that 800m is extreme short of cannon and then even for 20mm but it should be possible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Technically" possible - as in, "possible in paper and pencil calculation". Unfortunately, in real life, those assumptions quite didn't turn out the way one would think. Otherwise, the doctrine of airborne gunnery would not have come to pass as we know.

Aaron_GT
02-20-2004, 10:47 AM
clint-ruin wrote:
"The other factor in the Sakai quote provided in Kweassas post .. other than the P-39 [any others?] the US was using wing-mounted gun planes. Unless the pilots shooting at him from 500m had their convergence set to 500m+, the probability of him being hit from that range is really, really low."

Actually the probability of a single hit won't
actually be much different. In fact firing
outside convergence might increase your chances
of a single hit as you have a bit of a shotgun
effect after the streams have crossed. What
will be vastly reduced is the concentration
of fire at that point if the target is beyond
convergence. If you can track down Ogre's
site on gunnery (based on a combination of
Warbirds 2 and his own software) it makes it
clearer with graphs.

If you are firing at targets closer than
convergence you get a drop in concentration
of fire too, but it is much less dramatic
as the target subtends a bigger solid angle
as it is closer.