PDA

View Full Version : My public appology about the .50 cal thread.



Gibbage1
05-21-2004, 03:11 PM
I wanted to say sorry to everyone in the comunity for the strife I created over my dispute with Oleg about the spread on the .50 cal M2 gun in IL2.

My intent is not to punish the members of the comunity by taking away projects. I made a comitment to build and complete the PBY Catalina cockpit, and I am a man of my word. It will be completed. But it may unfortunatly be my last project for the IL2 series.

I owe Oleg a lot. I owe him a lot of respect for the game he created, the comunity he created, and the oppertunity's he created for the comunity. When I lost my job, building models for Oleg kept food on the table and rent paid. He also supported many modelers and gave them there first start in a professional product. I also owe my current job to IL2 and Oleg since my boss is a big IL2 fan and found me by my work for IL2.

Also, some miscomunication has happened between Oleg and I. We all know Oleg's english is not the best, and I have mis-translated what he said with what I thought he said. I have been quoting Oleg as saying that the M2 "Should be similar to UBs", and it was really "M2 was programed similar to UBs" and I take full responsability for this error.

I am in no way going to leave the comunity if this .50 cal issue never gets solved. And I am no way giving up my fight. I love the game, and I love the people in the comunity, and I have a great deal of respect for Oleg and his crew. I also have a great deal of respect for Ival and the forum rules that I broke. I made things personal and soiled the forums with my grevancies.

I also wanted to say that the line of comunication between I and Oleg is still open. Nobody has requested me to appologize, and nobody has nevied any punishments on me for stepping out of line. This is all my choice and my own free will.

If you have any proof for or against the spread of the .50 cal, please post it and/or send it too il2beta@1c.ru and discuss it in an orderly way in the ORR. If it gets out of hand, it will only be locked and that wont help anyone.

Again, I am sorry to everyone, Oleg, and Ivan for my recent actions and heated words.

Kevin "Gibbage" Miller

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Gibbage1
05-21-2004, 03:11 PM
I wanted to say sorry to everyone in the comunity for the strife I created over my dispute with Oleg about the spread on the .50 cal M2 gun in IL2.

My intent is not to punish the members of the comunity by taking away projects. I made a comitment to build and complete the PBY Catalina cockpit, and I am a man of my word. It will be completed. But it may unfortunatly be my last project for the IL2 series.

I owe Oleg a lot. I owe him a lot of respect for the game he created, the comunity he created, and the oppertunity's he created for the comunity. When I lost my job, building models for Oleg kept food on the table and rent paid. He also supported many modelers and gave them there first start in a professional product. I also owe my current job to IL2 and Oleg since my boss is a big IL2 fan and found me by my work for IL2.

Also, some miscomunication has happened between Oleg and I. We all know Oleg's english is not the best, and I have mis-translated what he said with what I thought he said. I have been quoting Oleg as saying that the M2 "Should be similar to UBs", and it was really "M2 was programed similar to UBs" and I take full responsability for this error.

I am in no way going to leave the comunity if this .50 cal issue never gets solved. And I am no way giving up my fight. I love the game, and I love the people in the comunity, and I have a great deal of respect for Oleg and his crew. I also have a great deal of respect for Ival and the forum rules that I broke. I made things personal and soiled the forums with my grevancies.

I also wanted to say that the line of comunication between I and Oleg is still open. Nobody has requested me to appologize, and nobody has nevied any punishments on me for stepping out of line. This is all my choice and my own free will.

If you have any proof for or against the spread of the .50 cal, please post it and/or send it too il2beta@1c.ru and discuss it in an orderly way in the ORR. If it gets out of hand, it will only be locked and that wont help anyone.

Again, I am sorry to everyone, Oleg, and Ivan for my recent actions and heated words.

Kevin "Gibbage" Miller

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Zen--
05-21-2004, 03:13 PM
Good call.

<Salute>

-Zen-

faustnik
05-21-2004, 03:14 PM
Great to hear this Gibbage. The FB community owes you a whole lot. We appreciate all your hard work and hope for more of your great models in the future.

S!

faust

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

Kasdeya
05-21-2004, 03:14 PM
Thanks, Gib.

http://img61.photobucket.com/albums/v186/Kasdeya/demonmoving.gif (http://www.361stvfg.com/)
CWoS Forums. More Cheese, Less Whine (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

TheGozr
05-21-2004, 03:18 PM
Good call.
------------
Gibbage you have mail on your @lycos account.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
------------
-GOZR
http://www.french.themotorhead.com/forgotten-battles/images/IOCompetition.jpg <--Competition Level IL2fb here (http://www.french.themotorhead.com/forgotten-battles/)

lil_labbit
05-21-2004, 03:18 PM
Great Gibbage!

S~

http://members.home.nl/lil.labbit/lilseesya.jpg
Night is better than Day

p1ngu666
05-21-2004, 03:18 PM
feel its worthy of a S! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

good news on the pby also http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
<123_GWood_JG123> NO SPAM!

ASM 1
05-21-2004, 03:20 PM
Gibbage

Thats good to hear mate. Thanks for "clarifying" things http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

S!

Andrew

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r/ta152Hns-2.jpg

Aeronautico
05-21-2004, 03:21 PM
Now, that's how to speak!

You're probably right on the M2 issue, and other obvious issues are evidently ignored by Oleg, but he might have reasons not to solve them, and deserves all the respect and unquestionable trust for what he's done, no matters what.

Well done Gib.

A!

--------------------
Airplanes are now built to carry a pilot and a dog in the cockpit: the pilot's job is
to feed the dog, and the dog's job is to bite the pilot if he touches anything...

- Arlen Rens, Lockheed Martin test pilot

[This message was edited by Aeronautico on Fri May 21 2004 at 08:16 PM.]

Chuck_Older
05-21-2004, 03:22 PM
Only the second time I've done this, Gib- http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

~S!~

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

Bearcat99
05-21-2004, 03:30 PM
Good to hear Gib... I am away and when I heard all this I said to myself WTF!!! I go away for a few weeks and everything goes to h@ll!! Bad enough the patch came out and Im no where near my rig.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://magnum-pc.netfirms.com/mudmovers/index.htm)

USE THAT X45 STICK AS A BUTTON BAY!

Curly_109
05-21-2004, 03:37 PM
I personally think that u don't have to apologize... as far as I know, you did not offended anyone but simply state your opinion. Like u do it now. There has been whole bunch of other guys who continue the 'domino effect'...
You only give them excuse... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

TgD Thunderbolt56
05-21-2004, 03:40 PM
Good form!

I think we each have our own "sticking points" and , for the most part, history has shown educated, informed arguments are listened to.



http://home.earthlink.net/~aclzkim1/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/il2sig2.jpg

Black Sheep
05-21-2004, 03:46 PM
I must admit I thought you were... somewhat foolish in the way you've gone about things over the last few days but it takes a big man to step up and apologise in front of a big group of people.

I do hope the PBY cockpit isn't your last piece for Il2 as you definately have a talent; I work in the video games industry myself and know it when I see it.

If nothing else, I will always be grateful to you for the truly beautiful Spitfire models you've created; one of my all time favorite planes in my favorite sim.

~S!~

HH Quazi
05-21-2004, 03:48 PM
Great form Gib. Although you may have ruffled some feathers at the top of the chain, I don't think your posts bothered us little links too much. S!

http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/nightschpanker/QuasiPOWsmall.jpg

noshens
05-21-2004, 03:49 PM
I don't uderstand this forum drama

Gibbage1
05-21-2004, 03:50 PM
But you must admit that it makes for some good entertainment from the sidelines hay?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by yay1:
I don't uderstand this forum drama<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Gibbage1
05-21-2004, 03:52 PM
Its the way I presented my arguement that started the dominoe. Im not sorry I posted my openion, Im sorry for the way I did it. I will still contenue to fight the good fight, you can count on that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Curly_109:
I personally think that u don't have to apologize... as far as I know, you did not offended anyone but simply state your opinion. Like u do it now. There has been whole bunch of other guys who continue the 'domino effect'...
You only give them excuse... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

VMF513_Viper
05-21-2004, 03:53 PM
Gib,

Just admit your an Alchoholic and everything will be cool LOl j/k man,

Gib I have know you for a bit now and I know what stand for in the way of many things. You dont have to apologize to me for stating an opinion. It is some who enjoy blowing things out of proportion. (Not referring to Ivan) Ivan is a great mod and he does his best to keep things real. it is some other who post on here who really blow it up.

So Gib, Keep pluggin at the models man. I was waiting for the 38 for the longest and I have told you already what i think of it.

You are a great asset to the Il-2 community and will always be with your zeal and talents.

S! Gibbage and to the others who post reat comments to this forum.

Viper

&lt;table style="filter:glow(color=Navy Blue, strength=3"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt; &lt;B&gt;&lt;font color=white&gt;Viper&lt;BR&gt;Commanding Officer VMF-513
http://www.vmf513.com
UBI Movie Maker Forum Moderator
Virtual War Cinema Admin
http://www.virtualwarcinema.com
"Chance Favors The Prepared Mind"
&lt;BR&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/B&gt;

noshens
05-21-2004, 03:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
But you must admit that it makes for some good entertainment from the sidelines hay?

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it does but i regret not following it. If I only knew how it's going to turn out. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

crazyivan1970
05-21-2004, 04:00 PM
What can i say Gibb, thanks for this.

Now, who the hell is Viper? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

VMF513_Viper
05-21-2004, 04:02 PM
Ivan,

I find you lack of Faith Disturbing young Jedi.

Lol Oh yeah Hi Ivan. Didnt see ya there.

Viper

&lt;table style="filter:glow(color=Navy Blue, strength=3"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt; &lt;B&gt;&lt;font color=white&gt;Viper&lt;BR&gt;Commanding Officer VMF-513
http://www.vmf513.com
UBI Movie Maker Forum Moderator
Virtual War Cinema Admin
http://www.virtualwarcinema.com
"Chance Favors The Prepared Mind"
&lt;BR&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/B&gt;

Charos
05-21-2004, 04:03 PM
RESPECT.

NegativeGee
05-21-2004, 04:06 PM
Well put Gib!

*pats Gibbage on his virtual back*

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

Zayets
05-21-2004, 04:06 PM
I don't know how you offended anyone Gib.
Seriously , I follow this debate for more than a month and I really don't see where you offended someone. Of course , it doesn't count that once you have said you're never model for Oleg again http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
But! Seriously , I don't see what's the big fuss about , OK , some stuffs are not allright , but my thought is why don't we enjoy the game as it is , with it's pros and cons? In the end , what it will be left is only memories , and if you don't have a lot of good ones , that means something went wrong really bad. Even if I don't play that often anymore THE game , I remember lotta good stuffs around here. And this is refreshing.

PS 1 :Now Ivan! , It's Monday and we wait for your word , man!
PS 2 : I wanted a cool sig , but this damn ubbshoitycode wreks up my beautiful ASCII sig.Damn!

Zayets out
----|------------|-----------|----
| --/ - \-- |
-|---------| o |--------|-
/\ _ /\
[]/ \[]

JG52_wunsch
05-21-2004, 04:39 PM
well said,and cheers,m8.

After it was refeuled i climbed in.With many manipulations the mechcanics started the turbines.I followed their actions with the greatest of interest.The first one started quite easily.the second caught fire.In no time the whole engine was on fire.Luckily as a fighter pilot i was used to getting quickly out of the cockpit.The fire was quickly put out.The second plane caused no trouble - Adolf Galland (first time in a ME262)

WereSnowleopard
05-21-2004, 04:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:


"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gibbage, I understand you. We should forgive you as you are most valueable member. we may want keep you as modder. Take a time to think it over and let's see what you can do for IL2 community. Umm one more thing...why not drop your quote "Most P-39's were sent to the Russians...." should drop to make Oleg and his team more happy. Why not try find your new quote that may impress Oleg? Silly me?

Highly Regards
Snowleopard.

LEXX_Luthor
05-21-2004, 04:42 PM
Gibbage1:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But you must admit that it makes for some good entertainment from the sidelines hay?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have been wondering the same thing, since crazy said we had been fooled. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"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
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

SeaFireLIV
05-21-2004, 04:43 PM
Incredible. I never, ever thought I would see this. You know my anger at this wasn`t about your problem with the .50((whether true or not), but simply in the way you went about it.

Well done. I am amazed. I don`t quite believe it. I`m sure further disagreements with Oleg will be more civil now.

SALUTE!

SeaFireLIV...

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

It`s HARDCORE out there!

-HH-Dubbo
05-21-2004, 04:45 PM
Onya Gib http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
There are good and bad things about this community, and the good IMHO outnumber the bad by a long way. You sir, are one of the good things.

http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/nightschpanker/crashoz.jpg
Kermit the Frog is actually a south paw.

Red_Russian13
05-21-2004, 04:46 PM
Gib;

I've always enjoyed your comments on this forum and the products you've produced. I was dissapointed, not in what you said recently (as it was your opinion), but how you said it, and what you threatened to do. I'm glad you've reconsidered. I for one, accept your appology. You're a good man for it.

Having said that, get back to work!

Regards,

Red Russian

LW_lcarp
05-21-2004, 05:01 PM
Have no idea why you are saying sorry to the forum. Its not us you attacked, it was oleg and his disregard for the evidence put in front of him by members of this community.

Its not only the .50 cals but there have been alot of discrepincies and all we get told is i have information and im not going to show you. Now is that anyway to treat the people that spend there hard earned money for these games?

"If winning isnt everything why do they keep score"
Vince Lombardi

VW-IceFire
05-21-2004, 05:12 PM
It takes one type of man to make an argument that he believes is right...it takes quite another kind of man to do that and then appologise for the way he may have carried it out.

I think its much appreciated Gibbage what you've said here.

S!

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Udidtoo
05-21-2004, 05:20 PM
They say it takes a big man. Well done and while the method may have started from anger and frustration I admire that you stick by your belief and continue to provide support for your views.

As an adult I too have a hard time swallowing 'Because I said so" Maybe all this can help shed some light on the why's of certain issues within the game.

..............................
I always have just enough fuel to arrive at the scene of my crash.

Destraex
05-21-2004, 05:24 PM
Chivalry is not dead

Zeus-cat
05-21-2004, 05:47 PM
You are a class act sir.

S!

Zeus-cat

LeadSpitter_
05-21-2004, 06:00 PM
I dont really see a need for you to apologize when your right. But I repect your post to apologize to be on better terms with oleg which is a good thing.

This patch is the best we had in a long time and I hope the next one continues to fix more issues then it creates like 2.01 does.

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

Gibbage1
05-21-2004, 06:03 PM
My quote is more of a joke. I love the P-39 and fly it all the time. I find it funny how one mans dream is another mans nightmare. This quote in itself shows the pilots view of politics of WWII. Plus I think its just so funny!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WereSnowleopard:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:


"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gibbage, I understand you. We should forgive you as you are most valueable member. we may want keep you as modder. Take a time to think it over and let's see what you can do for IL2 community. Umm one more thing...why not drop your quote "Most P-39's were sent to the Russians...." should drop to make Oleg and his team more happy. Why not try find your new quote that may impress Oleg? Silly me?

Highly Regards
Snowleopard.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

WereSnowleopard
05-21-2004, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
My quote is more of a joke. I love the P-39 and fly it all the time. I find it funny how one mans dream is another mans nightmare. This quote in itself shows the pilots view of politics of WWII. Plus I think its just so funny!

Oh I see, That's cool! Thanks for let me know how funny it was. I bet it will be fun to fly variants of P-39 at PF.

Cheers
Snowleopard

VFA-195 Snacky
05-21-2004, 06:30 PM
First of all Gibbage, good on ya bud.

Second, Leadspitter you gotta show me how to make one of those sigs, thats just cool.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/531seawolf/b_a_presidential_first.jpg
"Navy1, Call the Ball- Roger Ball."


**Opinions expressed are not those of UbiSoft or Eagle Dynamics**

BaldieJr
05-21-2004, 06:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
I dont really see a need for you to apologize when your right. But I repect your post to apologize to be on better terms with oleg which is a good thing.

This patch is the best we had in a long time and I hope the next one continues to fix more issues then it creates like 2.01 does.

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah ha! Going soft are ya?

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

Gibb, you know you've done the right thing when Lead says something positive. Three cheers for both of you.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
EDIT: Cherry
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
My Specs (read 'em and weep):
* Automatically grinds whole beans before brewing
* Fully programmable 24 hours in advance
* Brew Pause feature lets you enjoy a cup before brewing has finished
* Automatically shuts off when brewing is complete
* Grind-off feature for brewing ground coffee
* 1-4 cup feature to accommodate coffee for one
* 10-cup double-wall insulated thermal carafe to keep your coffee hot long after brewing
* Gold tone commercial-style permanent filter eliminates the need to buy coffee filters
* Charcoal water filter removes impurities from the water
* Separate grinder chamber and filter area allow for easy cleanup
* Limited 3-year warranty
</pre>

Old_Canuck
05-21-2004, 06:40 PM
http://www.cardazoid.com/cards/crumbazoids/truckintn.gif

OC

"You don't stop playing because you grow old, you grow old because you stop playing."

Gibbage1
05-21-2004, 06:41 PM
Fun to fly them? Lol. No. The ones the US flew in the Pacific were early models and had tons of armor and a lower HP engine. They earned there name of Iron Dog. The ones the Russians got were of a much later model after a lot of the bugs were worked out, better engine, and the Russians removed a lot of the armor and even fuel tanks. It was a differant beast from the P-400 and P-39B in the Pacific. Also they faced a differant enemy and used differant tactics. Japs had light nimble low flying aircraft, and Germans had fast high flying not-so-nimble aircraft. There are so many factors as to why it sucked for the US and why it rocked for the VVs I cant list them in a day http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WereSnowleopard:
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
My quote is more of a joke. I love the P-39 and fly it all the time. I find it funny how one mans dream is another mans nightmare. This quote in itself shows the pilots view of politics of WWII. Plus I think its just so funny!

Oh I see, That's cool! Thanks for let me know how funny it was. I bet it will be fun to fly variants of P-39 at PF.

Cheers
Snowleopard<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

tttiger
05-21-2004, 06:42 PM
Well said, Gib.

Personally, all I saw was a passionate stand on what you believe to be true.

But sometimes we offend when we never intend to. Board posts don't include the tone of voice, the facial expressions or the body language of a real face-to-face discussion.

S!

ttt

"I want the one that kills the best with the least amount of risk to me"

-- Chuck Yeager describing "The Best Airplane."

widgeon
05-21-2004, 06:52 PM
Good to see.


Widgeon

LEXX_Luthor
05-21-2004, 06:54 PM
Wretchfest maximus now this is a Soap Opera.


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"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
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

WTE_Ibis
05-21-2004, 06:59 PM
If this is a "bonding session" then I luv yez all.

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/Ibissix-schmile.JPG
www.uploadit.org/Ibissix/MOSSIE.jpg

GT182
05-21-2004, 07:01 PM
~S!~ Gib! Even tho ya din't have to, you did good.

One question tho and I'll leave ya alone. Is there any chance to getting landing gear on the PBY? I know, I know, I asked before but just had to again. {I haven't found the thread yet where I asked to see if you replied, sorry. I'm getting older and CRS is setting in more and more.} http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

"GT182" / "vonSpinmeister"
www.bombs-away.net (http://www.bombs-away.net)
"Fly to Survive, Survive to Fly"

XyZspineZyX
05-21-2004, 07:10 PM
As usual Gibbage, you never fail to impress me. You are sir, a man of honor.

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/9334/Image6.jpg

Gibbage1
05-21-2004, 07:18 PM
The cockpit I am modeling is a PBY-5A with landing gear. I did this so the PBY will be flyable anywere.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GT182:
~S!~ Gib! Even tho ya din't have to, you did good.

One question tho and I'll leave ya alone. Is there any chance to getting landing gear on the PBY? I know, I know, I asked before but just had to again. {I haven't found the thread yet where I asked to see if you replied, sorry. I'm getting older and CRS is setting in more and more.} http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

"GT182" / "vonSpinmeister"
http://www.bombs-away.net
"Fly to Survive, Survive to Fly"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Freycinet
05-21-2004, 07:43 PM
good call (first posting in this thread).

respect.

clayman_52
05-21-2004, 07:57 PM
Gibbage,

From day one to this thread ... for all that you have and will do for us ... you are a class act.

With deep respect / clayman

Vigilanty
05-21-2004, 08:00 PM
Cool, Mr. Gibbage. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Speaking as someone who has gone off a few times myself, I know that what you just did took guts and I respect you for it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

TugZooey
05-21-2004, 08:00 PM
Salute! Gibbage.

hugs all around.

LeadSpitter_
05-21-2004, 08:08 PM
Snacky1 let me know what planes you want and ill make a sig for you.

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

T_O_A_D
05-21-2004, 08:10 PM
http://bostonblueyes.com/New%20Smilies/popcorn.gif Good Show!

Now lets get this http://bostonblueyes.com/New%20Smilies/group.gif On the road!

Have you checked your Private Topics recently? (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=ugtpc&s=400102)
My TrackIR fix, Read the whole thread (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=49310655&m=15310285&p=1)
131st_Toad's Squad link (http://www.geocities.com/vfw_131st/)
http://home.mchsi.com/~131st_vfw/T_O_A_D.jpg

Snyde-Dastardly
05-21-2004, 08:33 PM
Well done and well said Gib.
Im still behind ya with the 50s though http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://img21.photobucket.com/albums/v62/Vic-Whiplash/DN_4.bmp

USAAF_78thFG_WZ_B
05-21-2004, 09:00 PM
*tear* *blows nose* *sniffling* gib....that was beautiful man... *runs away crying* lol.... your a real man...most people cant apolgize when they realize they did somthing wrong,if it was wrong, like everyone is saying, you are a true asset to this game, i, as many others, have long awaited the famed P38.. and it is a great piece of work. Everyone expects perfection, we all want these planes to handel like they do in real life, but it aint gonna happen....Everyone has their different opinion on how all planes handel, and how guns should act and how damage should be, its the way its going to be. We're gonna see alot more of these occasions pop up.. im jus watching from the side lines...but im cheerin for ya.


yeah yeah yeah.. ill shut up now... jus ignore me.. lol
S`

Wildman
78th Fighter Group Commanding Officer
"Too Tough To Tame"

[This message was edited by USAAF_78thFG_WZ_B on Fri May 21 2004 at 08:09 PM.]

Gibbage1
05-21-2004, 09:44 PM
How about a P-38 shooting down a 109?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
Snacky1 let me know what planes you want and ill make a sig for you.

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

zetareticulan
05-21-2004, 09:51 PM
The promotional blurb on the disc cases describes this forum as 'passionate'.

Ain't that the truth. If people like you etc. etc. etc. etc.- there are so many - didn't give an emotional d**n, we wouldn't have the outstanding product we all enjoy today, with all its associated UQMG's and IL2 Skin repositories...the list goes on.

The controversies that rage from time to time in these forums make fascinating reading.

Basically, some things are worth getting 'passionate' about.

BennyMoore
05-21-2004, 09:55 PM
Flying, and to a slightly lesser extent the simulation thereof, is one of them. But, three cheers for making up anyway...

Korbelz
05-21-2004, 10:04 PM
thank you ~S~

VVanks
05-21-2004, 10:14 PM
NIcely done.

Cheers! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
http://rle.homeip.net/wyn/plane.jpg (http://wyn.vze.com)

Hawg-dawg
05-21-2004, 10:46 PM
Well Stated..................S~

I need a job......I play IL2 all day http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
Start Lookin Next Week

AKA Bad-MF(Mongral Fighter).... Member... Kelly Johnsons SKUNK WORKS
Sucka Free since 1969..... Fatboys Forever

tsisqua
05-21-2004, 11:16 PM
Gibbage. I stayed away from your thread the first time, but wild horses couldn't keep me outta this one!

I am very grateful to you, Sir . . . for helping to make a dream come true: Flying the P-38, virtual, or otherwise.

You've made me proud to be a part of the forum where you have bothered to come and post, and now all I can say is that you have your right, perhaps in a way that none of us do, to request a change to the plane that you modelled (as well as the other .50 cal totting planes).


We all get frustrated at times, but the real measure of a man is to be able to know when passion turns to anger; it can get out of control. Salute to you, for remembering that friends are worth keeping. Good job, all around.


Tsisqua

LEXX_Luthor
05-21-2004, 11:41 PM
LOL no "salute" but Gibbage your apology to the board is accepted!



__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"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
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Franzen
05-21-2004, 11:50 PM
Way to go Gib http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif. I do appreciate your argument over the 50.cals. I'm no expert but it's logical to say things are not right, unless of course we Germans were super human pilots and the Allied pilots were mushrooms but I don't think it was that way.
I can understand your frustration. I am slowly losing interest in this game simply due to the inaccuracies. The more I play the more I learn and the more I get frustrated. The gap between history and IL-2 grows with every addition. Of course everyone can quote documents and pilots 65 years after the fact but the results are most valid. If this game was accurate then I want whatever the LW pilots were smoking 65 years ago.
If I jump into a 109(which I fly almost religiously) I get few kills. If I jump into a Spitfire(which I avoid almost religiously) I get many kills and can take a lot of hits. This cannot be accurate modelling according to historical results.
You were right to complain and voice your opinion but maybe the method wasn't the best. As I said, I understand the frustration, being human also. I really appreciate your work and the efforts of Oleg and the crew. From a business perspective I think it's time Oleg started listening a little more to his customers. Although presently he has little or no competition other games are coming.

BTW, I really hate the P-51 automatic shotguns also.

Fritz Franzen

LEXX_Luthor
05-22-2004, 12:01 AM
Franzen:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If I jump into a 109 (which I fly almost religiously) I get few kills. If I jump into a Spitfire (which I avoid almost religiously) I get many kills and can take a lot of hits. This cannot be accurate modelling according to historical results.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Because flight sims do not model historical pilot training, historical tactics, or historical tactical leadership advantages.

Nor do flight sims prevent sloppy simming. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"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
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Dutch60
05-22-2004, 12:14 AM
Gibbage S!.
Thanks for al the planes you created for this superb SIM and I hope if you have the time you will create plenty more.
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://home.planet.nl/~elzer033/images/dutch-p51.jpg
Fight Sims Forever

Franzen
05-22-2004, 12:20 AM
I agree with you Lexx, there are so many limitations with simming but one fact still remains the same; whether I fly the 109 or the Spit, I am still the same pilot, with much more training in the 109 and very little in the Spit. To me, I really don't care which planes were better I just like accuracy. We should leave the history rewriting to the governments.

Fritz Franzen

LEXX_Luthor
05-22-2004, 12:57 AM
The rewriting of history is done by amatuer computer dogfighters when we sim the Great Aces, and nothing but the Aces, and we wear Their skins as our own.


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"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
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Freycinet
05-22-2004, 01:18 AM
very well said lexx: reality check! (always a need for it in these forums...)

VFA-195 Snacky
05-22-2004, 01:24 AM
That's awsome man, thanks
my ICQ# is 46367780 if you would like to chat about it. I'm looking for sort of a Navy theme with a Hellcat or Corsair.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
Snacky1 let me know what planes you want and ill make a sig for you.

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.x-plane.org/users/531seawolf/b_a_presidential_first.jpg
"Navy1, Call the Ball- Roger Ball."


**Opinions expressed are not those of UbiSoft or Eagle Dynamics**

DuxCorvan
05-22-2004, 01:49 AM
Gibbage rules.

http://www.songsouponsea.com/Promenade/thetis-zeus.jpg

- Dux Corvan -
http://www.uploadit.org/DuxCorvan/Altamira2.jpg
Ten thousand years of Cantabrian skinning.

LEXX_Luthor
05-22-2004, 01:53 AM
Note the clouds supporting the mass of Gibbage God's left arm. I was hoping Luthier would mod clouds that explode your plane if you collide with them. Hard clouds basically, with huge collision box, or collection of small boxes. Then they will pay attention to clouds.



__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"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
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Franzen
05-22-2004, 02:02 AM
ha ha ha http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Gibbage for President http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

Fritz Franzen

RAAF_Edin
05-22-2004, 02:13 AM
I feel I should quickly add to this 0.50call Gibbage...

I was all the way with you about how terrible the spread is on the 0.50call but something I did just an hour ago made me change my mind.

What I did was do a propper test (I think it's pretty accurate) where I flew a P-40M in QMB and used a friendly B-17 as a target. Recorded the quick mission then watched it veeeeery slowly.

I did 2 tests for 300m and 200m convergence and in both test I fired only a very short burst (just a tap on the trigger) right into the B-17 fuselage from it's 6 o'clock, from the right convergence distance of 300m and 200m.

I found (to my amasement) is that the tracers were the only ones that actually missed the target. The bullets however DID hit pretty much right where the're supposed to (into B-17 fuselage).

In 300m convergence test there were recorded 6 hits and in 200m convergence lot more then 6 hits (I couldn't exactly tell how much as there were arrows showing bounced off bullets so it looks like there's lot more hits then what actually hit).

I have screenshots of this but no place to put them on and if someone wants them I will email them to him/her gladly.

I was/am very suprised to see that obviously its the tracers that are way off but not the bullets. I don't know if this was the case before the patch but I see that now 0.50call are actually alright.

Again I will gladly email someone the screenshots so everyone can see what I am talking about.

--------------------------------------
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

Gibbage1
05-22-2004, 02:47 AM
Edit. Turn on Arcade=1 in the config.ini and it will show a white dot were your bulletes hit. This is what I have been using to test.

http://www.gibbageart.com/images/spread.jpg

Gib

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

RAAF_Edin
05-22-2004, 02:50 AM
I have done exactly that Gibbage. The hits are really not that spread att all... well at least not after the patch.

I would really like if someone could post the screenshots for me so everyone can see my tests. Also I am very eager to see what you think of it.

--------------------------------------
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

Gibbage1
05-22-2004, 02:56 AM
I dont think anyone here has a problem hitting a B-17 at 200 yards. Its the concentration that we have an issue with. All other aircraft with .50 cal guns have a LOT better concentration then any aircraft that uses the US .50 cal. For instance a P-39 Q-10 with 2 .50's compaired to the spread of a Ki-84 with the nose mounted .50's. The P-39 will spread the damage all over the B-17, but the Ki will be very concentrated and almost sniper-like.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAAF_Edin:
I have done exactly that Gibbage. The hits are really not that spread att all... well at least not after the patch.

I would really like if someone could post the screenshots for me so everyone can see my tests. Also I am very eager to see what you think of it.

--------------------------------------
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Extreme_One
05-22-2004, 04:02 AM
Gibbage you are a higly respected member of the community - and this is more proof of the fact that the respect is worthy of you.

Good call!

S! Simon
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''
Download the USAAF & RAF campaign folders here (http://www.netwings.org/library/Forgotten_Battles/Missions/index-10.html).

Download "North and South" including the Japanese speech-pack here (http://www.netwings.org/library/Forgotten_Battles/Missions/index-12.html). *NEW*

http://server5.uploadit.org/files/simplysimon-Ex_1_sig.jpg

Freycinet
05-22-2004, 07:55 AM
...But US fighter .50's weren't set to actually concentrate all bullets at one single point in space at convergence distance.

They were set to "cover" a certain area (imagine a vertical plate perpendicular to the firing direction) at convergence distance.

This was done to assure that at least some bullets hit their target at convergence distance, rather than all missing by half a yard.

Since US fighters basically had to deal wih swift, small and vulnerable German fighters in the ETO this made sense.

Whether SOME ace pilots had their convergence set to deliver all the bullets at one single point in space at convergence distance I don't know, but the average Joe had the spread, even at convergence setting.

The various .50's were pointing slightly up, down, left, right, assuring the "wall of bullets" at convergence distance.

IL2-chuter
05-22-2004, 08:12 AM
??? Wall of bullets at convergence. ??? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

Never heard of that one. I know some Navy pilots in the Pacific paired guns up at multiple convergences . . . maybe some Eighth Fighter Command pilots did, too . . . "shotgun spread", huh . . . http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

"I fly only Full Real in Il2 Forgotten Battles." -Mark Donohue

BuzZz_WG
05-22-2004, 08:35 AM
I read of a wall of bullets in Robert L. Shaws' book "Fighter combat". It was done so the rookies could damage a plane and -if lucky- down one

I saw gibbage post his picture again of the spread. I noticed his directory of images was open (http://www.gibbageart.com/images/ ... better look into that Gibbage). That picture is from March 21. I don't have a clear view on what was changed in this patch, but maybe you should create a new post-patch screenshot.

I stayed clear of all the .50 discussions, since I usually have no input to give. At least, no reliable or accurate input. Maybe a few more of us should do that. A big salute for your apologies, it takes courage to do it.

BREAK! BREAK!
Nevermind...

Gibbage1
05-22-2004, 12:36 PM
US fighters with wings guns were typically set to have a "kill zone". A coan of fire. The P-51 would have the inner guns set to 150M, middle guns 200M, and outer at 250M so any aircraft between 150-250M would be pelted. Not so for US aircraft with nose mounted guns like the P-38 and P-39/63. They were boarsighted and only the vertical convergance was set, not the horizontal. I never noticed the spread on the P-39 because I know 2 .50's really could not do much damage. But when the P-38 came out I was astonished to see my shots spreading over a 5' area only 100m away from me. It has the same spread as a P-47. Thats wrong. I think the P-51 and P-47 should have quite a bit of spray because thats the way they were set in WWII, but not the P-38.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freycinet:
...But US fighter .50's weren't set to actually concentrate all bullets at one single point in space at convergence distance.

They were set to "cover" a certain area (imagine a vertical plate perpendicular to the firing direction) at convergence distance.

This was done to assure that at least some bullets hit their target at convergence distance, rather than all missing by half a yard.

Since US fighters basically had to deal wih swift, small and vulnerable German fighters in the ETO this made sense.

Whether SOME ace pilots had their convergence set to deliver all the bullets at one single point in space at convergence distance I don't know, but the average Joe had the spread, even at convergence setting.

The various .50's were pointing slightly up, down, left, right, assuring the "wall of bullets" at convergence distance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

LoneWolf_89
05-22-2004, 01:04 PM
Please don't stop making planes Gibbage. I want a flyable B17! You were right about the .50 caliber machine guns. I really hope they are fixed in this patch! I think that Oleg is very stubborn I remember the big FW190 cockpit arguments.

By the way the view on the FW190 is still wrong.

LoneWolf_89
05-22-2004, 01:04 PM
Please don't stop making planes Gibbage. I want a flyable B17! You were right about the .50 caliber machine guns. I really hope they are fixed in this patch! I think that Oleg is very stubborn I remember the big FW190 cockpit arguments.

By the way the view on the FW190 is still wrong.

LoneWolf_89
05-22-2004, 01:05 PM
Please don't stop making planes Gibbage. I want a flyable B17! You were right about the .50 caliber machine guns. I really hope they are fixed in this patch! I think that Oleg is very stubborn I remember the big FW190 cockpit arguments.

By the way the view on the FW190 is still wrong.

Aaron_GT
05-22-2004, 01:22 PM
"??? Wall of bullets at convergence. ???

Never heard of that one. "

Pattern harmonisation as opposed to point harmonisation. The RAF also experimented with pattern harmonisation. A while ago someone posted (or I found online - can't remember which) a series of Hurricane pattern harmonisation options. Some of the patterns were intended to form two diamond shapes over the engines of an He111 at a bit more than convergence range, for example.

Aaron_GT
05-22-2004, 01:23 PM
" I never noticed the spread on the P-39 because I know 2 .50's really could not do much damage."

If unsynchronised it would be the equivalent of about 6 .303s. You lose some for the synchronisation, and gain some for having it concentrated in the nose. So two .50s are almost as powerful as the armament of a Hurricane I in theory.

Freycinet
05-22-2004, 02:26 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gibbage1:
US fighters with wings guns were typically set to have a "kill zone". A coan of fire. The P-51 would have the inner guns set to 150M, middle guns 200M, and outer at 250M so any aircraft between 150-250M would be pelted. Not so for US aircraft with nose mounted guns like the P-38 and P-39/63. They were boarsighted and only the vertical convergance was set, not the horizontal. I never noticed the spread on the P-39 because I know 2 .50's really could not do much damage. But when the P-38 came out I was astonished to see my shots spreading over a 5' area only 100m away from me. It has the same spread as a P-47. Thats wrong. I think the P-51 and P-47 should have quite a bit of spray because thats the way they were set in WWII, but not the P-38.
[QUOTE]

I'm interested to hear what your sources are for the boresighting of the P-38. Do they say that the boresighting was widespread? (no pun intended.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif)

AFAIK P-38 pilots weren't better than other US fighter pilots, so it would be logical if they were using the same convergence policy as the other fighters, i.e. a set pattern for bullet dispersion at convergence distance.

NOT saying your sources aren't right or anything! - Just interested in what the are. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

(After all, we're all here to gain knowledge, right?)

Anyway, you should probably have mentioned earlier that you don't consider all US fighters armed with .50's borked, because I think that quite a few people here have taken your postings as saying that the p-47 and P-51 have been stymied as well...

(Maybe you did write that somewhere, I could have missed it...)

Obi_Kwiet
05-22-2004, 02:43 PM
All these .50 cal, flash ishues are insane. For some reason they won't be fixed and I don't know why, but I bet they'll be better in BoB, next year. So let's put whines on hold untill BoB comes out. So even though your right about the .50 cal, and have given proof, don't let this be your last IL2 moddle Gib, your IL2's best moddler! Maby in BoB we'll have bullet string option, and enhanced convergance options. *Hearby, stops involvment in the .50 cal ishue*

gombal40
05-22-2004, 02:57 PM
To say sorry for 10000+ takes a man to speak like a man.
Finish the pby. u promised. do good, if they dont take it .. well we all know whats the deal like dont we? ( to be sure let it see to another free agent and let him report)

DONB3397
05-22-2004, 03:00 PM
Gibbage, your contribution to this game and community make it important for US that you hang around. I suspect Oleg knows this better than we do.

It's a good thing that you're 'passionate' about accuracy and authenticity; that's what makes your models what they are. I think that's what drives Oleg as well. Start with that premise, as I think you have with this post, and this hobby, IL2 and the rest of us will benefit.

P.S. I really want that handsome PBY to fly!

http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/3fe77b7e_1812a/bc/Images/Sig---1.jpg?BCe37rABvnWVLZQo
"And now I see with eye serene/The very pulse of the machine;
A being breathing thoughtful breath,/A Traveller between life and death." -- Wordsworth

Freycinet
05-22-2004, 03:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
All these .50 cal, flash ishues are insane. For some reason they won't be fixed and I don't know why, but I bet they'll be better in BoB, next year.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I'm also totally sure there wont be any problem with the US .50 cals in BoB... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

Menthol_moose
05-22-2004, 06:06 PM
Im glad that there are people still these days with the stomach to stand up to what they believe in and can still appologise at the end of the day.

But considering the number of aircraft that has .50's in them, this issue is too important to go away, and it wont.

Gib has presented enough evidence both in game and historical to prove this simple issue is wrong and it must be fixed. He was doing the right thing by making it public after numerious and futile attempts to get oleg to fix the issue. As said before, there are too many aircraft with 50s to ignore and let go.

The most simple test, I could think of was to fly a .50 spitfire, then use the hurri field mod. Both use two 50's wing MG's. The difference between the two types of guns can be seen easily just by firing straight forward.
The UB's track like lazers, the Brownings spray like a smooth bore gun.

Anyway. Good work gib, thanks for standing up for what you know is a important issue.

Gibbage1
05-22-2004, 06:26 PM
http://www.gibbageart.com/images/P38_21_action.jpg

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freycinet:

I'm interested to hear what your sources are for the boresighting of the P-38. Do they say that the boresighting was widespread? (no pun intended.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

HellToupee
05-22-2004, 06:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
" I never noticed the spread on the P-39 because I know 2 .50's really could not do much damage."

If unsynchronised it would be the equivalent of about 6 .303s. You lose some for the synchronisation, and gain some for having it concentrated in the nose. So two .50s are almost as powerful as the armament of a Hurricane I in theory.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

more like 4 303s.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

Chuck_Older
05-22-2004, 06:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
US fighters with wings guns were typically set to have a "kill zone". A coan of fire. The P-51 would have the inner guns set to 150M, middle guns 200M, and outer at 250M so any aircraft between 150-250M would be pelted. Not so for US aircraft with nose mounted guns like the P-38 and P-39/63. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This has always been basically my understanding of it as well. I had been under the impression that the two outboard guns were set to about 300 yds and the inboard one set to half that, but this could easily be changed, one presumes, to suit the pilot's taste. It also gives an insight into why the inner pair of P-51D's mgs had a different amount of ammo than the outer two pair.

I had been unaware of pattern harmonisation, but was this standard of harmonisation an RAF practice only, or was it ever adopted by USAAC/USAAF? Or did I mis-read that post?


What a pic, Gib! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Even more impressive to me than the tracers is the photography equipment used to take that shot, in the 1940s. How expensive a camera was that, if bought in today's dollars, do you suppose that was? Anyone have a guess? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

Gibbage1
05-22-2004, 09:59 PM
You can see the P-47's diamond pattern here.

//www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-47/47GECD.gif

Now here is something too chew on. The US had a lot of elaborate sighting patters and charts like this for every aircraft. They aimed the guns in a way to make sure the pilots get a kill spread. If the guns really DID spray as much in IL2 then why bother with it? Just set all the guns to a single convergance, and it would spray a killzone by itself, hay? No. They had to make a killzone or the guns would only be effective at convergance and its hard to get an aircraft into convergance.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:

I had been unaware of pattern harmonisation, but was this standard of harmonisation an RAF practice only, or was it ever adopted by USAAC/USAAF? Or did I mis-read that post?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

TgD Thunderbolt56
05-22-2004, 10:12 PM
All good points, but whether there were improvements made or not, my initial findings since the patch show the .50's to be more effective than they were.



http://home.earthlink.net/~aclzkim1/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/il2sig2.jpg

crazyivan1970
05-22-2004, 11:19 PM
Is this turning into 50 cal thread again? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

LEXX_Luthor
05-22-2004, 11:23 PM
That was the whole idea http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"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
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Freycinet
05-23-2004, 02:14 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gibbage1:
http://www.gibbageart.com/images/P38_21_action.jpg
[QUOTE]

'Kay, I se that you don't even feel like taking the time to post the name of the book, so I guess that means no willingness to delve into the matter.

And yes, I'm aware that you might have posted the book info before, but I can't go looking up all your former postings.

If solely the picture caption is your source, then it is very flimsy I must say. First of all it doesn't say whether the boresighting is for the plane in the picture or all p-38's. It might be that Lockheed (the source of the picture) boresighted all planes when they rolled out of the factory and the US military then did their own calibrations in the field (They surely did, boresighting or not). From a tiny picture caption it is hard to tell, because there's very little info there. I would have expected a military source.

The picture itself doesn't explain anything. It's a wide-angle shot, so everything disappering into the distance (even a few tens of meters) will give the appearance of converging.

(BTW: no fancy equipment used, just an ordinary camera with a flash and long-exposure).

The gun convergence chart shows that the result of shooting from a p-47 would indeed be a bullet spread at convergence, but you already agreed on that, when it comes to wing-mounted .50's, so no discussion there.

Apart from that, the schematic doesn't show actual spread, but just the direction the guns are pointing in a setup. To say that they shouldn't bother pointing the guns if there was a spread is a REALLY strange argument!

Spread or no spread, there'll always be a center of the spread which has the highest probability of bullets passing through. That's the nature of spreads, and that would be their guideline when converging the guns. Pattern harmonisation (something you can control) and gun spread (inherent to the gun, out of your control) are two different factors that shouldn't be mixed up.

DIRTY-MAC
05-23-2004, 07:06 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I wanted to say sorry to everyone in the comunity for the strife I created over my dispute with Oleg about the spread on the .50 cal M2 gun in IL2.

My intent is not to punish the members of the comunity by taking away projects. I made a comitment to build and complete the PBY Catalina cockpit, and I am a man of my word. It will be completed. But it may unfortunatly be my last project for the IL2 series.

I owe Oleg a lot. I owe him a lot of respect for the game he created, the comunity he created, and the oppertunity's he created for the comunity. When I lost my job, building models for Oleg kept food on the table and rent paid. He also supported many modelers and gave them there first start in a professional product. I also owe my current job to IL2 and Oleg since my boss is a big IL2 fan and found me by my work for IL2.

Also, some miscomunication has happened between Oleg and I. We all know Oleg's english is not the best, and I have mis-translated what he said with what I thought he said. I have been quoting Oleg as saying that the M2 "Should be similar to UBs", and it was really "M2 was programed similar to UBs" and I take full responsability for this error.

I am in no way going to leave the comunity if this .50 cal issue never gets solved. And I am no way giving up my fight. I love the game, and I love the people in the comunity, and I have a great deal of respect for Oleg and his crew. I also have a great deal of respect for Ival and the forum rules that I broke. I made things personal and soiled the forums with my grevancies.

I also wanted to say that the line of comunication between I and Oleg is still open. Nobody has requested me to appologize, and nobody has nevied any punishments on me for stepping out of line. This is all my choice and my own free will.

If you have any proof for or against the spread of the .50 cal, please post it and/or send it too il2beta@1c.ru and discuss it in an orderly way in the ORR. If it gets out of hand, it will only be locked and that wont help anyone.

Again, I am sorry to everyone, Oleg, and Ivan for my recent actions and heated words.

Kevin "Gibbage" Miller

Respect! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I hope this issue will be solved.

By the way, maybe someone have asked you this
already, but what will happend with the Demon?

S!

Curly_109
05-23-2004, 07:12 AM
There is no problem with .50 in this game, also there is however no any significant problems in game with anything....
Also I wonder why anyone haven't bring out .303 Hurri 'issue', since it's lot alike .50
just kidding http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

We're just spoiled http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Saburo_0
05-23-2004, 10:47 AM
Very Gentlemanly of you Gib! I hope others will follow your example. Getting upset does show you care so we all understand that.
S!

Franzen
05-23-2004, 10:56 PM
Gibbage. I just looked at your spread test pics. I am on your side of the argument but I must point out that it looks like the tests were done with different angles of attack. If so it makes your tests invalid. Can you do these again but keep all the variables the same.

I apologize in advance if I am wrong but this is how it appears to me. As you do, I like accuracy. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz Franzen

Gwalker70
05-24-2004, 02:46 AM
why did you bow down.. you had good points fan boys bash you.. then you come back with "sorry" no surrender !!! stick with your points.. youre not the first person to have "dealings" with oleg and his data and designs.. hes not perfect you know.. and we can help him a great deal in this sim

Blutarski2004
05-24-2004, 08:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freycinet:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gibbage1:
http://www.gibbageart.com/images/P38_21_action.jpg
[QUOTE]

'Kay, I se that you don't even feel like taking the time to post the name of the book, so I guess that means no willingness to delve into the matter.

And yes, I'm aware that you might have posted the book info before, but I can't go looking up all your former postings.

If solely the picture caption is your source, then it is very flimsy I must say. First of all it doesn't say whether the boresighting is for the plane in the picture or all p-38's. It might be that Lockheed (the source of the picture) boresighted all planes when they rolled out of the factory and the US military then did their own calibrations in the field (They surely did, boresighting or not). From a tiny picture caption it is hard to tell, because there's very little info there. I would have expected a military source.

The picture itself doesn't explain anything. It's a wide-angle shot, so everything disappering into the distance (even a few tens of meters) will give the appearance of converging.

(BTW: no fancy equipment used, just an ordinary camera with a flash and long-exposure).

The gun convergence chart shows that the result of shooting from a p-47 would indeed be a bullet spread at convergence, but you already agreed on that, when it comes to wing-mounted .50's, so no discussion there.

Apart from that, the schematic doesn't show actual spread, but just the direction the guns are pointing in a setup. To say that they shouldn't bother pointing the guns if there was a spread is a REALLY strange argument!

Spread or no spread, there'll always be a center of the spread which has the highest probability of bullets passing through. That's the nature of spreads, and that would be their guideline when converging the guns. Pattern harmonisation (something you can control) and gun spread (inherent to the gun, out of your control) are two different factors that shouldn't be mixed up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Patern harmonization was recommended for use by "average" pilots with mediocre marksmanship skills in orer to give them a better chance of actually hitting their target. I have only found official proof of pattern harmonization in connection with the USAAF. The situation with respect to USN remains undocumented AFAIK.

Pattern harmonization was practical because the effect of a point converged battery of six or eight 50cal at point of convergence produced an overkill effect against conventional fighter targets. Therefore, it was practical to reduce this excessive lethality at a single range point in favor of lesser but still sufficient lethality over a deeper range band.

This is not to say, however, that pattern harmonization was employed exclusively. Although the USAF fighter gunnery manual in my possession shows pattern harmonization as the standard method of gun alignment, it still allows that point convergence is a useful tool in the hands of pilots with superior marksmanship skills. There are many documented references to the continued use of point convergence by USAAF pilots during the war.

BLUTARSKI

Freycinet
05-24-2004, 09:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
(...)Although the USAF fighter gunnery manual in my possession shows pattern harmonization as the standard method of gun alignment, it still allows that point convergence is a useful tool in the hands of pilots with superior marksmanship skills. There are many documented references to the continued use of point convergence by USAAF pilots during the war.
BLUTARSKI<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, the manual in your possesion is proof that pattern harmonisation was indeed the norm in US fighters.

Of course it should also be simulated like that in Il-2FB, since we cannot (with the present game engine) choose between harmonisation patterns at convergence distance, but only set the convergence distance itself.

It would be interesting with a future sim engine allowing users to choose between a few typical harmonisation patterns. Maybe a feature where you can set it yourself after a number of kills in a campaign, since you mentioned that aces sometimes had it changed. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The point that still needs clarification is whether the P-38 followed the normal pattern harmonisation at convergence distance, or whether it was boresighted, as Gibbage says.

Till now I've only seen a photo caption mentioning boresighting of a P-38 at Lockheed gunnery trials, it seems (hard to say with so little info: just a few lines in a photo caption).

We'll need further evidence (military manuals) to be able to ascertain whether the P-38 followed normal practise or not.

I can see why Gibage would consider this very important: after all he made the plane! I look forward to some clarification on the issue.

Gibbage1
05-24-2004, 12:23 PM
I remember reading the boar sighting in the pilots manual. I will try and dig it up. But also try and use some common sense. With the guns in such a tight pack, what use would a pattern be? Boarsighting would mean a killing shot no matter the distance, but converging it would mean your limiting your kill zone.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freycinet:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
(...)Although the USAF fighter gunnery manual in my possession shows pattern harmonization as the standard method of gun alignment, it still allows that point convergence is a useful tool in the hands of pilots with superior marksmanship skills. There are many documented references to the continued use of point convergence by USAAF pilots during the war.
BLUTARSKI<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, the manual in your possesion is proof that pattern harmonisation was indeed the norm in US fighters.

Of course it should also be simulated like that in Il-2FB, since we cannot (with the present game engine) choose between harmonisation patterns at convergence distance, but only set the convergence distance itself.

It would be interesting with a future sim engine allowing users to choose between a few typical harmonisation patterns. Maybe a feature where you can set it yourself after a number of kills in a campaign, since you mentioned that aces sometimes had it changed. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The point that still needs clarification is whether the P-38 followed the normal pattern harmonisation at convergence distance, or whether it was boresighted, as Gibbage says.

Till now I've only seen a photo caption mentioning boresighting of a P-38 at Lockheed gunnery trials, it seems (hard to say with so little info: just a few lines in a photo caption).

We'll need further evidence (military manuals) to be able to ascertain whether the P-38 followed normal practise or not.

I can see why Gibage would consider this very important: after all he made the plane! I look forward to some clarification on the issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Gibbage1
05-24-2004, 12:26 PM
From the P-38 flight manual. I hope you consider this enough proof.

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-38/38BSC.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freycinet:

We'll need further evidence (military manuals) to be able to ascertain whether the P-38 followed normal practise or not.

I can see why Gibage would consider this very important: after all he made the plane! I look forward to some clarification on the issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

RocketDog
05-24-2004, 12:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I remember reading the boar sighting in the pilots manual. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gib, I think the chance of sighting a boar at any height in the atmosphere woiould have been quite limited :-)

Regards,

RocketDog.

Gibbage1
05-24-2004, 12:31 PM
The P-38 and LAGG were in flight and I tried to make the same angle of attack. Of corse being in flight, exact is not possible. But remember, AoA only account for vertical patter, but not the horizontal. You can clearly see the horizontal pattern is still a lot wider then the LAGG.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Franzen:
Gibbage. I just looked at your spread test pics. I am on your side of the argument but I must point out that it looks like the tests were done with different angles of attack. If so it makes your tests invalid. Can you do these again but keep all the variables the same.

I apologize in advance if I am wrong but this is how it appears to me. As you do, I like accuracy. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz Franzen<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

[This message was edited by Gibbage1 on Mon May 24 2004 at 12:30 PM.]

Blutarski2004
05-24-2004, 12:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freycinet:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
(...)Although the USAF fighter gunnery manual in my possession shows pattern harmonization as the standard method of gun alignment, it still allows that point convergence is a useful tool in the hands of pilots with superior marksmanship skills. There are many documented references to the continued use of point convergence by USAAF pilots during the war.
BLUTARSKI<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, the manual in your possesion is proof that pattern harmonisation was indeed the norm in US fighters.


..... I don't know the answer to that question. It is also not clear when during the war pattern harmonization was conceived and ultimately officially recommended. And, as mentioned, I have no info regarding the practices of the USN.


Of course it should also be simulated like that in Il-2FB, since we cannot (with the present game engine) choose between harmonisation patterns at convergence distance, but only set the convergence distance itself.


..... Hence my question as to whether this pattern harmonization issue is actually behind the extremely large dispersion patterns displayed by US 50cal MGs. If there is a limitation within the game engine which prevents proper display of this feature, then maybe what we are seeing is an attempt to approximate pattern harmonization within the limits of said game engine.


It would be interesting with a future sim engine allowing users to choose between a few typical harmonisation patterns. Maybe a feature where you can set it yourself after a number of kills in a campaign, since you mentioned that aces sometimes had it changed. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


..... Quite so. IIRC, I think that custom gun harmonization patterns are actually POSSIBLE in CFS, if the virtual a/c builder is clever enough with his a/c design s/ware - at least it was in CFS2.


The point that still needs clarification is whether the P-38 followed the normal pattern harmonisation at convergence distance, or whether it was boresighted, as Gibbage says.

Till now I've only seen a photo caption mentioning boresighting of a P-38 at Lockheed gunnery trials, it seems (hard to say with so little info: just a few lines in a photo caption).

We'll need further evidence (military manuals) to be able to ascertain whether the P-38 followed normal practise or not.

I can see why Gibage would consider this very important: after all he made the plane! I look forward to some clarification on the issue.



..... I would, at the end of the day, like to see the option of point convergence provided for US fighters. It would be unhistorical not to permit the option.



<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BLUTARSKI

gombal40
05-24-2004, 12:50 PM
posted it before. I'm not a gun expert they are. Hassle them for some info on the case. It seems to have good references.

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

maybe they have some goodies to share

GT182
05-24-2004, 01:15 PM
Thanks Gib on the PBY news. You'll make a lot of guys happy. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

"GT182" / "vonSpinmeister"
www.bombs-away.net (http://www.bombs-away.net)
"Fly to Survive, Survive to Fly"

ZG77_Nagual
05-24-2004, 01:36 PM
I've run across a few references that do indicate the m2 .50 in ww2 was not the most accurate tool in the shed. Someone - Blutarski maybe? Mentioned the 500 meter spread on the 38's fifties should be about 13 feet. During my tests - which consisted of diving stratight down on water with arcade turned on I encounteres some problems with the nose wanting to come up or down in the 38 - so disregarding vertical spread relative to the nose of the plane I found the consistent maximum distance between impact points was pretty close to the distance between the outsides of the engine nacelle's. Pretty darn close to 13 feet I'll bet. It is true that the ki84 and yaks and 109 I tested were much tighter - but I'm pretty sure the 12.7s on the yak were better guns than the m2 in terms of accuracy - and it wouldn't surprise me if the japanese and german guns were as well.

Gibbage1
05-24-2004, 02:13 PM
I would really like to see your source that said 13 feet of spread at 500M. I have seen guncam footage of a P-38 straifing a runway and the bulletes hit the ground in a rather tight pack. It looked like a snake snaking its way accross the runway because the pilot was applying generous ammounts of rudder to hit aircraft that were spread around the field.

All my sources say that yes, the VVS UBs were better in terns of power, range, rof, but NONE mention the UBs being better in terms of spread. As for your statements that you wouldn't be suprised if Jap and German guns were better as well, would you be suprised if I told you the Ho-103 was a jap copy of the M2?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
I've run across a few references that do indicate the m2 .50 in ww2 was not the most accurate tool in the shed. Someone - Blutarski maybe? Mentioned the 500 meter spread on the 38's fifties should be about 13 feet. During my tests - which consisted of diving stratight down on water with arcade turned on I encounteres some problems with the nose wanting to come up or down in the 38 - so disregarding vertical spread relative to the nose of the plane I found the consistent maximum distance between impact points was pretty close to the distance between the outsides of the engine nacelle's. Pretty darn close to 13 feet I'll bet. It is true that the ki84 and yaks and 109 I tested were much tighter - but I'm pretty sure the 12.7s on the yak were better guns than the m2 in terms of accuracy - and it wouldn't surprise me if the japanese and german guns were as well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Franzen
05-24-2004, 02:15 PM
Good point, thx Gibbage. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz Franzen

Blutarski2004
05-24-2004, 02:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I would really like to see your source that said 13 feet of spread at 500M.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Gib,

According to a 1950 USAF fighter gunnery manual in my library, the M2 50cal in a rigid a/c mounting (wing or nose) firing in the air-to-air mode is credited with a 100 pct dispersion zone of 8 mils. In 1950 USAF parlance a mil is the apex angle formed by an isosceles triangle with sides 1000 ft long and a base of 1 foot. Stated in another way, 100 pct of shots fired by a single 50cal will strike within a circular area 8 feet in diameter at a range of 1000 feet (333 yards). At 500 meters (547 yards), the diameter of the circular area would be about 13 feet.

According to the standard exterior ballistics law of distribution, at 500 meters the distribution of hits within that circle will be as follows:

50 pct of hits strike within a circle of 2 mils (3.25 ft) diameter.

82 pct of hits will strike within a circle of 4 mils diameter (6.5 feet) diameter.

96 pct of hits will strike within a circle of 6 mils diameter (9.75 feet).

With a point convergence set at 547 yards / 500 meters (a very long range indeed for air to air), a battery of six 50cals firing a one second burst at that range would theoretically put 36 bullets out of 72 bullets fired into a area of 8.3 square feet (less than one square yard), i.e. - about 4 bullets per square foot.

Since hitting density varies inversely according to the square of the range, it can be seen that the same six guns firing at 250 meters point convergence would be quite deadly, depositing those same 36 hits within a circular area of 2 square feet, i.e. - about 18 bullets per square foot.

Please note that this is dispersion of air to air fire expected by the USAF, and was not ground based bench test results.

If you were watching a strafing run, with bullets striking the ground at convergence range, over eighty percent of the bullets would be striking within the middle 50 percent of the bullet pattern width.

BLUTARSKI

NegativeGee
05-24-2004, 03:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
According to a 1950 USAF fighter gunnery manual in my library,.........BLUTARSKI<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Noting the date of the manual, are the weapons used for these tests comparable to those used in WW2, or were there any changes in design of the M2 or its ammunition that might effect such results?

If not, well you have a pretty convincing bit of evidence there http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Günther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

Gibbage1
05-24-2004, 03:11 PM
Very good information. A problem is the programmed dispersion in IL2 is nothing like the real-life dispersion. The dispersion in the game has the same % of bulletes striking the outer zone as in the inner. In real life there would be a concentration of bulletes in the center, with less and less going out. All guns are like this in real life, but not in IL2.

Also, do you think the .50 cal M2 is so vastly inferior in spread in real like as it is in IL2? I dont think the .50 cal M2 is the most accurate, and probably is one of the last, but not by this much.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I would really like to see your source that said 13 feet of spread at 500M.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Gib,

According to a 1950 USAF fighter gunnery manual in my library, the M2 50cal in a rigid a/c mounting (wing or nose) firing in the air-to-air mode is credited with a 100 pct dispersion zone of 8 mils. In 1950 USAF parlance a mil is the apex angle formed by an isosceles triangle with sides 1000 ft long and a base of 1 foot. Stated in another way, 100 pct of shots fired by a single 50cal will strike within a circular area 8 feet in diameter at a range of 1000 feet (333 yards). At 500 meters (547 yards), the diameter of the circular area would be about 13 feet.

According to the standard exterior ballistics law of distribution, at 500 meters the distribution of hits within that circle will be as follows:

50 pct of hits strike within a circle of 2 mils (3.25 ft) diameter.

82 pct of hits will strike within a circle of 4 mils diameter (6.5 feet) diameter.

96 pct of hits will strike within a circle of 6 mils diameter (9.75 feet).

With a point convergence set at 547 yards / 500 meters (a very long range indeed for air to air), a battery of six 50cals firing a one second burst at that range would theoretically put 36 bullets out of 72 bullets fired into a area of 8.3 square feet (less than one square yard), i.e. - about 4 bullets per square foot.

Since hitting density varies inversely according to the square of the range, it can be seen that the same six guns firing at 250 meters point convergence would be quite deadly, depositing those same 36 hits within a circular area of 2 square feet, i.e. - about 18 bullets per square foot.

Please note that this is dispersion of air to air fire expected by the USAF, and was not ground based bench test results.

If you were watching a strafing run, with bullets striking the ground, over eighty percent of the bullets would be striking within the middle 50 percent of the bullet pattern width.

BLUTARSKI<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Blutarski2004
05-24-2004, 03:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NegativeGee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
According to a 1950 USAF fighter gunnery manual in my library,.........BLUTARSKI<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Noting the date of the manual, are the weapons used for these tests comparable to those used in WW2, or were there any changes in design of the M2 or its ammunition that might effect such results?

If not, well you have a pretty convincing bit of evidence there http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Günther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


NGee,

The manual covered the following a/c F47 (ex P47), F51 (ex P51) F80, F82 (Twin Mustang), F84. It makes a distinction between the M2 and M3 variants of the guns in terms of RoF only. I'd have to go back and double-check the stipulated ammnition types, but I do not recall seeing any unusual postwar variants. All the ammo named appeared to me to be of WW2 vintage. I also have a 1948 weapons manual which was still basing its ballistic and AP performance curves upon the M2 50cal 36-inch barrel MG firing WW2 period M2 AP ammunition.

BLUTARSKI

Blutarski2004
05-24-2004, 03:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Very good information. A problem is the programmed dispersion in IL2 is nothing like the real-life dispersion. The dispersion in the game has the same % of bulletes striking the outer zone as in the inner. In real life there would be a concentration of bulletes in the center, with less and less going out. All guns are like this in real life, but not in IL2.



..... This is why I subscribe to the theory that Oleg's guys may be trying to approximate pattern harmonization within a game engine that does not support it. If so, I disagree if the intention is to make this an unalterable default mode for all US a/c weapons.


Also, do you think the .50 cal M2 is so vastly inferior in spread in real like as it is in IL2? I dont think the .50 cal M2 is the most accurate, and probably is one of the last, but not by this much.


..... The M2 50cal MG was heavy, and it only had an average RoF, but it had a very high muzzle velocity and fired a dense ballistically efficient AP bullet as its main ammunition type. It was an accurate machine gun weapon with good reach.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BLUTARSKI

Gibbage1
05-24-2004, 03:40 PM
Then you would agree that if Oleg is trying to simulate a spread pattern, he should do it with all .50 cal type guns? Not just the .50 cal? Sorry if I am asking so many questions. Im just trying to figure out your position on this.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Very good information. A problem is the programmed dispersion in IL2 is nothing like the real-life dispersion. The dispersion in the game has the same % of bulletes striking the outer zone as in the inner. In real life there would be a concentration of bulletes in the center, with less and less going out. All guns are like this in real life, but not in IL2.



..... This is why I subscribe to the theory that Oleg's guys may be trying to approximate pattern harmonization within a game engine that does not support it. If so, I disagree if the intention is to make this an unalterable default mode for all US a/c weapons.


Also, do you think the .50 cal M2 is so vastly inferior in spread in real like as it is in IL2? I dont think the .50 cal M2 is the most accurate, and probably is one of the last, but not by this much.


..... The M2 50cal MG was heavy, and it only had an average RoF, but it had a very high muzzle velocity and fired a dense ballistically efficient AP bullet as its main ammunition type. It was an accurate machine gun weapon with good reach.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BLUTARSKI

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Freycinet
05-24-2004, 03:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I remember reading the boar sighting in the pilots manual. I will try and dig it up. But also try and use some common sense. With the guns in such a tight pack, what use would a pattern be? Boarsighting would mean a killing shot no matter the distance, but converging it would mean your limiting your kill zone.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ehhh, a killing shot IF you aim precisely at the target. If your aim is off a tiny little bit, then all those boresighted bullets will zoom right past the target! - Th whole point of pattern harmonisation was putting SOME bullets on target by making a bit of a spread, wasn't it? (just using common sense here...http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

Could somebody explain the scan from the P-38 flight manual. I've had a good look at it, and I don't really understand the info... I see three lines representing the upper and lower .50's and the 20 mm., and they intersect at 400 yards but are otherwise spreading, it seems to me...?

Freycinet
05-24-2004, 03:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... The M2 50cal MG was heavy, and it only had an average RoF, but it had a very high muzzle velocity and fired a dense ballistically efficient AP bullet as its main ammunition type. It was an accurate machine gun weapon with good reach.

BLUTARSKI

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

..And in a small aside, I can tell that we still used them on the ships of the Danish navy, where I did my military service in the early 1990's. It was Marshall aid guns, but still going strong.... - And with GERMAN barrels with swastikas stamped on them! (thousands were left over by WWII's end in Denmark)

I read something about .50 cal bullets sometimes getting unstable in flight and turning head over heels through the air, you heard about that blutarski?

Gibbage1
05-24-2004, 03:59 PM
If you read P-38 pilots story's, they would lead the target, hold down the drigger, and let the target fly through the "stream". Also, USAAF piltos were outstanding marksmen. All they could do before the war was train on target drones, and the did it... a LOT! Marksmanship was well taught in pilot school. Patterning the guns on P-51 and P-47 was mainly for "rookies" but the aces preferred to have a single convergance.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freycinet:

Ehhh, a killing shot IF you aim precisely at the target. If your aim is off a tiny little bit, then all those boresighted bullets will zoom right past the target! - Th whole point of pattern harmonisation was putting SOME bullets on target by making a bit of a spread, wasn't it? (just using common sense here...http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

Could somebody explain the scan from the P-38 flight manual. I've had a good look at it, and I don't really understand the info... I see three lines representing the upper and lower .50's and the 20 mm., and they intersect at 400 yards but are otherwise spreading, it seems to me...?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.