PDA

View Full Version : Are guns bugged?



rcorporon
05-10-2004, 06:18 PM
I've read on a few posts that the guns are bugged right now (not doing the damage they should), while some other posts seem to say that they are fine.

Any clarification would be apprecaited.

Ronnie

http://images.snapfish.com/33%3A6436323232%7Ffp46%3Dot%3E232%3C%3D85%3B%3D563 %3DXROQDF%3E2323534%3C378%3A6ot1lsi

rcorporon
05-10-2004, 06:18 PM
I've read on a few posts that the guns are bugged right now (not doing the damage they should), while some other posts seem to say that they are fine.

Any clarification would be apprecaited.

Ronnie

http://images.snapfish.com/33%3A6436323232%7Ffp46%3Dot%3E232%3C%3D85%3B%3D563 %3DXROQDF%3E2323534%3C378%3A6ot1lsi

carguy_
05-10-2004, 06:27 PM
Only Hispanos on Hurri and Spit are ok AFAIK.Other than those all guns are bugged,even the dreaded Shvak.

The most bugged are MG151 and .50cal.

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

VW-IceFire
05-10-2004, 06:35 PM
Yup...most guns have some problems right now. Not doing the damage they should be...MG151/20, .50 cal, most guns...

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

rcorporon
05-10-2004, 06:47 PM
OK, that explains a lot http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Thanks, and I eagerly await the pach http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Ronnie

http://images.snapfish.com/33%3A6436323232%7Ffp46%3Dot%3E232%3C%3D85%3B%3D563 %3DXROQDF%3E2323534%3C378%3A6ot1lsi

horseback
05-10-2004, 07:56 PM
Personally, I'm bugged about the guns. For a while there, I thought it was the sinus prescription...

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Willthisnamedo
05-11-2004, 03:06 AM
I don't want to start a flame fest, but are they really? What is the evidence, as opposed to simply stating 'yes they are'?

I fly the P-51 online: it is definitely not like using a cannon, but (even with my gunnery...) I've brought down various a/c, including B-17s, with relatively short bursts, providing (again, more by luck than judgement in my case) I hit something important.

Other times I've pumped the whole magazine into a single seater at close range, and he survives. I've been assuming that the different effects are down to my lack of precision: is there any definitive evidence that something is wrong somewhere?

As I say, not a 'combatitive' post, but an interested one...

RAAF_Edin
05-11-2004, 04:14 AM
I will not comment on other weapons in FB but I can tell you (and lots of other guys will confirm) that 0.50cal is bugged majorly due to terribly high spread of it's bullets. If you ask for examples, well then there is one: With P-40 (as an example of aircraft armed wwith 6x 0.50cal) and having convergence setting at 300m with a bigg B-17 right in my sights, at same distance (namely 300m, more or less) the bullets (seen from tracers) will completely miss the whole aircraft. They almost never converge but just fly parallel and spread heavily. Almost every tracer will go high above and bellow the target (and mind you B-17 is a very large target http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif) Only occasional hit will be recorded and that is just wrong http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

Willthisnamedo
05-11-2004, 04:21 AM
Hmmm... I'm not convinced. 300 M is further away than I would consider a 'good' range for .50 cal engagement. If you have a track showing this effect, I'd love to see it.

As I say, this is not an attempt to start name calling, but, while I have often missed aircraft in exactly the same way as you state, I have also achieved serious destruction with the P-51. This is NOT because I think 'I'm brilliant', but because I suspect that I have managed to get it just right sometimes, as opposed to my usual performance. Frankly, I am surprised at the effectiveness of the 50cal. I have hit spits with v short bursts at least twice, and been rewarded with immediate burning engines - very satisfying.

So, as I say, do we have any tracks, or statements from 1c saying 'we acknowledge porked guns'?? Otherwise I have to doubt it.

peterm1
05-11-2004, 05:01 AM
All I can say is that I have used IL2 almost since the beginning and whilst earlier versions were arguably a tad over modelled, since AEP the damage modelling is absolute Shyte IMHO. I can get close and shoot up the enemy for ages without doing much damage.

yarbles67
05-11-2004, 07:39 AM
I believe the issue comes from the IL2 lottery system used to model damage. Sometimes a 30mm cannon shot in the wing root of a plane will yield a detached wing. Other times it will yield a smoking radiator. Other times it will yield a hole in the wing. Heck, sometimes it yield holes in the windscrene! The game doesn't have complex modeling down to the rivet but rahter a random number generator that approximates a 'hit' and then determines which damage routine to activate. It's that simple, at least based on my observation of a thousand different types of scenarios. Folks have known for some time that most of the ammo load outs are porked. You don't need to have a PhD in physics to understand that when a 30mm nose cannon hits the *** of another plane, the *** should be blown off, end of story. In this game, the 'hit' is feed into the lottery system to determine which damage comes out. It's like rolling the dice.

Willthisnamedo
05-11-2004, 08:05 AM
Guys, I don't doubt that this is what you have experienced. But it is all 'hearsay', in evidential terms. There are now at least 2 different possible complaints in the thread: one concerns the 'spread' or dispersion of the 50cal, the other concerns the effect of HE shells on a/c...

Dunno about the HE issue, but I am gonna run some static tests on 50 cal dispersion: I'll publish the tracks if I can.

Please accept: I do not know whether the guns/cannon are right or wrong, but I have not yet been shown any concrete proof, as opposed to opinion (however many people hold that opinion).

I'm thinking of firing at a hillside at (say) 200m, with different convergence settings, and recording the track, then having a look at the strike. That should settle dispersion. Not clear on HE effects: any other people wanna chip in with any suggestions on how to test this?

clint-ruin
05-11-2004, 08:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by yarbles67:
I believe the issue comes from the IL2 lottery system used to model damage. Sometimes a 30mm cannon shot in the wing root of a plane will yield a detached wing. Other times it will yield a smoking radiator. Other times it will yield a hole in the wing. Heck, sometimes it yield holes in the windscrene! The game doesn't have complex modeling down to the rivet but rahter a random number generator that approximates a 'hit' and then determines which damage routine to activate. It's that simple, at least based on my observation of a thousand different types of scenarios. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not actually correct, though you could be forgiven for thinking so.

Do you notice those little arrows spraying out from HE impacts? Did you notice the way that sometimes they hit nothing but air, whereas other times they get grouped very closely on the same aircraft segment?

Did you know that there is a seperate "3d" model for internal damage inside each aircraft, with wing spars/longerons, engine systems, fuel tanks, and other parts running through it?

Do you see how this might produce some fairly random looking damage effects at times?

Did you know that each shell modelled in FB has a seperate value for explosive/incendiary content, different shell types have their contents weighted differently, and AP rounds are actually calculated on momentum vs hit angle vs type of surface?

While this system is quite capable of producing 'random' results it is absolutely not the same thing as a 'random number generator' or a lottery for damage modelling.

willthisnamedo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Guys, I don't doubt that this is what you have experienced. But it is all 'hearsay', in evidential terms. There are now at least 2 different possible complaints in the thread: one concerns the 'spread' or dispersion of the 50cal, the other concerns the effect of HE shells on a/c...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are going to have a very hard time bringing out the difference in offline tests. Actually, there's two that show a marked difference from previous versions - the M4 cannon on the P-39 and the MG151/20 HE rounds. Both of these seem to have something weird happening with the way fragment damage is tallied up, much more than any other rounds - others I have tested are much harder to bring out a difference on, at least. The MG151/20 APIT damage, for example, works identically to previous versions, and is still capable of killing most aircraft outright with one single [aimed] shot in the engine. The problems start to occur when you whack one DM segment immediately next to another, and start to see that fragments that show as piercing nearby segments do not seem to influence the total amount of damage taken anywhere near as much as they did before.

For guns that always depended more on armour piericing rounds: .303 [100%], .50 cal [75%], Hispano Suiza [50% - though the APs in this are some of the most damaging in the game], MG151/15 [50%], and others, the difference is not so massively noticable.

For guns that have a significant number of explosive shells in the belt - notably, the M4 [100%], MK-108 [100%], MG151/20 [80%], you are going to notice if splash damage isn't quite working as it did before.

The second factor that is really, really annoying people is a couple of online issues - noone is running an AEP dedicated server, and AEP introduced some much more stringent anti-cheating measures for online games. This means that not every hit shown is being tallied the same way between the shooter and the target to a much greater degree than in previous versions of FB.

I have come across some more info on this since the issue broke but unfortunately I can't comment on it without crazyivan getting pissed at me :&gt;

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

[This message was edited by clint-ruin on Tue May 11 2004 at 10:08 AM.]

Willthisnamedo
05-11-2004, 11:03 AM
Clint - thanks: the first really informative post in this thread...

I now have several short but interesting tracks showing the firing of 50cal from a stationary P51 at a stationary B17. They are at 2 different ranges, approximating to the nearest and farthest at which I would choose to be firing, and feature a number of different convergence settings. They include a gunsight view, and external views of the strike/target effects.

To my mind, they show that 50cal is anything but undermodelled, and that the grouping/dispersion is fairly realistic (and before anyone comments, I have significant real-life experience of .50 and 7.62 MG firing, up to and including designing, building and running ranges using them.) The more interesting finding is that convergence settings appear to have little effect on the 'spread'...

If anyone would like to host them for the community, let me know and I'll e-mail them to you with a descriptive note.

clint-ruin
05-11-2004, 11:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Willthisnamedo:
The more interesting finding is that convergence settings appear to have little effect on the 'spread'...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's correct, it's one thing FB doesn't model at all. If you hit at convergence - it does not matter as far as the spread goes, whether you have it at 100m or 600m - the bullets never tumble out or grow steadily more inaccuate over range. It does affect the shape of the path the bullets take to get there, and where they go afterwards, though, which is very important for trying to whack any target outside of convergence. Rounds don't individually tumble out, but they do lose speed as they go along, which is meaninful in terms of how damage is calculated and how much lead you have to pull to hit at long range.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
If anyone would like to host them for the community, let me know and I'll e-mail them to you with a descriptive note.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll PM you with my email if you want. Generally speaking the B-17 is one of the weaker targets in the game right now - any kind of incendiary shell is very likely to start a fire in the fuel system which will put it down in short order. The one thing that seems to have gotten a small boost in effectiveness in 2.00 is the incendiary properties of all rounds. The Hurricane IIb is a good example of this - 12 guns, 240 rounds per second, 66% of which are incendiary - it is now very effective if any kind of fuel system is exposed from where you're shooting.

There is a gigantic thread over here: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=979109092&p=1 that goes into the .50 cal dispersion issue in depth. The end conclusion of which was that the max [100%] dispersion figure should be in the region of 8 mils. We currently have something in the region of 100% of shots hitting within 18 mils.

To cherry pick from the end, this post from Blutarski:

At 100 yards, an 8 mil 100 pct dispersion will put all the rounds fired by a single gun into a circle 2.4 feet in diameter. 80+ percent of the shots will strike in a circle of 1.8 feet diameter, and half the shots will strike within a circle 1.2 feet in diameter.

To put it another way, just a one second burst of fire from a single 50cal M2 rigidly mounted a/c MG shooting at you from 100 yards will put about 10 bullets through the computer screen you are looking at right now.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Willthisnamedo
05-11-2004, 11:51 AM
OK Clint: just for interest, I've looked at that thread: these are slightly different tests, but interesting nontheless.

Send me your e-mail - dya need anything else from me?

RAAF_Edin
05-11-2004, 05:10 PM
It is not the effectiveness of the bullets that are wrong with 0.50cal but the fact that they "spray" way too much and you can't hit a damn thing with them unless you are extremelly close. But again if you are extremelly close the wing mounted guns are really bad to shoot with because if you are on target's 6 o'clock. the bullets again will just bypass it. And by the way 300m is not that far at all. Anything under 400m is considered a "hot distance" where it's not hard at all to get hits. If convergence is set to 400m and you target is 200m in front that is still good because the bullets will be 1/2 way converged (and still converging closer) and if the wing mounted guns are some 3m apart then at 200m bullets would be as close as 1.5m which is more then enough to hit a B-17 as B-17 is not a small target at all. The damn thing is couple meters high and when you consider that in FB tracers miss it completely by distance greater then 1-2m up and bellow and the fact that they should actually concentrate as accurately as hitting the monitor size target at 100m convergence, then by all logic FB 0.50cal is FUBAR.

clint-ruin
05-12-2004, 03:18 AM
Tracks from willthisnamedo - I can only host the 300m one since they've been sent as .ntrk at the moment and I don't have space for the others. Hopefully we can get some done as .trks that we can look at in arcade mode sometime :&gt;

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/guntest300.zip

From Willthisnamedo:

There are then 2 files doing the same thing, but at a closer range ("guntestclosexxx"): the 2 sets represent the approximate maximum and minimum ranges at which I tend to be engaging...

I tried to remove as many uncertainties as possible by using stationary firing platforms and targets: there is some movement as a result of recoil (even the brakes don't kill it totally).

Without getting into the 'mils'/ shape of beaten zone' debate, I think that these tracks show 2 things:

a). The 'spread' on the P51 is pretty fair: playing with the external views allows you to see the strike at the target end: given that MGs are designed to produce a 'beaten zone', or 'cone of fire', and are actually called area weapons by the military, these are exactly the sort of groupings I would expect in RL.

b). The 50cal effectiveness is fine against a B17: some of the tracks require only 2 quite short bursts to destroy the a/c.

My personal conclusion is that there is little wrong with the 50cal effectiveness. The most significant factor is almost certainly player skill: firing range, deflection skill and target point of aim are the keys. This also fits with personal experiences on-line, where I have been pleasantly surprised when I 'get it all together', as opposed t othe frustration when I'm not trying hard enough (!)

That said, I was very surprised at the almost total lack of observable effect of the different convergence settings. These range from 125 to 500 m, and yet at these target ranges show no appreciable increase/decrease in the 'apex' of the cone of fire, to my eyes at least.

Rgds.

Will

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

ElAurens
05-12-2004, 05:16 AM
As I recall the real problem is with large caliber cannons, mostly, (yes Iagree the .50 is way off too..). the reason is that, because of the new anti speed hack component in AEP there are dropped packets on cannon damge info, hence cannon hits cause no damage online as compared to offline. I've seen this happen too many times. direct hits wit the Mk 108 or P39's 37mm cause nothing more than a puff of black smoke after a direct hit...\\

The much awaited patch should help (so they say...).

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

rcorporon
05-12-2004, 11:52 AM
Thanks for all of the frank discussion here!

Lots of info, and it should clear some things up when the patch comes out http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Ronnie

http://images.snapfish.com/33%3A6436323232%7Ffp46%3Dot%3E232%3C%3D85%3B%3D563 %3DXROQDF%3E2323534%3C378%3A6ot1lsi

clint-ruin
05-12-2004, 12:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rcorporon:
Thanks for all of the frank discussion here!

Lots of info, and it should clear some things up when the patch comes out http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There has been some direct input from Oleg on the issue - at least in his view nothing was changed to do with the guns themselves for AEP. I am pretty sure that the main difference is in the anticheat code of AEP vs FB, and that a lot of servers are now more shaky in general given the lack of the DS. That said, there are a couple of guns issues that do show up as different offline as well as offline - only something I've found after hours of looking, since it's nowhere near as bad as it is online. Some planes seem to be affected more severely than others.


For the moment, consider this whole mess as a big incentive to improve your aim :&gt;

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Locust_
05-12-2004, 01:46 PM
IMO yes they are bugged ...

the proof, u ask for is easy to see

go to quick mission builder fly an a9 & shoot down bandits with ease.
fly a p51 same thing No problem @ all.

Then go online 50 to 85 solid ping server light up a bandit in a p51 same angle same deflection same range & what do you get NOTHING.......

it takes many hits with 50 or a9 default gun to kill also the mk108 half the time when I get a hit I never see any explosion or anything at all to let me know ive hit it.....

Ill say on comms hey thats bs that shoulda hit, & my wingman will say hey you just lit his **** up whatchu talkin about, I tell him I seen nothing not a spark or puff of smoke or nothing, he sayes there was a huge explosion smoke & all LOL thats the proof !!!

http://img20.photobucket.com/albums/v61/AFJ_Locust/p38loco1sig.jpg