PDA

View Full Version : The 50s in this sim ......



Bearcat99
04-04-2008, 06:39 PM
Are not as bad as some think.

http://star.walagata.com/w/bearcat/4796389.avi

Note that that is the P-51B. So it really is all a matter of stability and actually hitting what you are aiming at... that and the mercy of your internet connection for online.

Grey_Mouser67
04-04-2008, 06:47 PM
IMHO...the issue with the .50's has always been about oscillation and stability. When I fly planes like the Zeke, 109 and FW I am nearly as effective with the .30's because I can hold target much better.

I'd love to see a Mustang or Corsair modelled with the same control dampening that is on the Zeke or 109. I'm not a pilot but I have flown many times in small aircraft and while they are not fighter aircraft going through violent movements, there is not an inherent instability that causes it to shudder, shake and oscillate back and forth.

I love the FM's of the 109, 190 and A6M and I wish more aircraft were given such control characteristics...I've always felt, back to the IL 2 days that the FM in this game is "twitchy" and oversensitive. Some aircraft like the Corsair, Hellcat, Lightning and Mustang absolutely drive me bonkers as my pipper draws circles around enemy aircraft and a 2 or 3 second burst into an aircraft is an impossibility for me.

steiner562
04-04-2008, 07:40 PM
1 pass kill with the 50 cals rule and are very hard for me to get,I just wish the tracers were a little brighter,they usually do enough damage to cripple the blue aircraft anyway,but as I've learned convergence is everything.

crucislancer
04-04-2008, 08:24 PM
I agree, the .50s are not as bad as some think.

Generally speaking, I think mastering gunnery with .50s is the toughest in this game, and not because they are "porked". Convergence and hit location are much more important then when lobbing some 30mm rounds into someones tail.

VMF-214_HaVoK
04-04-2008, 08:43 PM
Once we have a better engine with more failures to the aircraft like its engine the MGs will much more effective. Right now I feel most are more then adequate to do the job on most aircraft. I still prefer the less then accurate .50s we had back in FB.

S!

SeaFireLIV
04-04-2008, 09:06 PM
I was flying the P40C Warhawk the other day, after flying the Spit Vb. Now the Warhawk has 0.50s right?

I found the warhawk guns much easier to aim and batter a 109 with that the Spitfire which needed a steady hand otherwise most of your cannons are lost.

Even not pinpoint aiming, I could spray the small area and bust something on a 109. You won`t chew wings off, but aim for the cockpit and engine area and it isn`t long before he`s smoking or pked. I tend to keep my convergence at 200 at the mo. The guns felt light compared to the Spit cannon, but I got 2 kills surprisingly easy.

M2morris
04-04-2008, 09:20 PM
I might have to change my convergence then or something because I was in P-47 at max alt on the Norway map I think it was, against some FW 190s and I would get right on a six and cut-loose with all 8 fifties and it seemed like that 190 was bullet-proof. I could get it to trail fuel and loose some pieces but it was hard to getem to go down, very hard. On other maps, the fiftes were more damage-causing, it seems like it matters what map you are on.Is that true Bearcat? About what map you are on as far as gun difficulty?

M_Gunz
04-04-2008, 09:30 PM
P-51 is high power torquey and sensitive to trim.

If you don't slow down or speed up much once you are starting your firing run then you stay in
trim while shooting. EDIT - Ooops, that's firing run you did trim for! Trim for combat speed
and stay near that at least when you shoot, or retrim for the shot.
It's easier to have a shooting speed as well as a convergence range and know the +/- speed
that won't leave the nose wobbly on you.

If you run 70-80% rpm and not too fast and you can turn a smaller radius -and- have less TORQUE.

EDIT - Maneuver speed for the P-51 was about 250 mph, IIRC.

P-51 gunsight even has the little slip ball under it.

Look at it this way. If the nose only wanders when you go to shoot then what changed?
If the nose wanders all the time the add lots of filter to your stick sensitivities.

Maybe just add the filter anyway? It really helps without limiting your control authority or
leaving your stick sensitivity get radically coarse with 'hard' pulls. I pick filter.

stalkervision
04-04-2008, 09:44 PM
didn't the later p-51 have a gyroscopic gunsite? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif You might try that. I believe it is modeled in il-2... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Skycat_2
04-04-2008, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by M2morris:
I might have to change my convergence then or something because I was in P-47 at max alt on the Norway map I think it was, against some FW 190s and I would get right on a six and cut-loose with all 8 fifties and it seemed like that 190 was bullet-proof. I could get it to trail fuel and loose some pieces but it was hard to getem to go down, very hard.
Kit Carson's personal assessments of the Fw190A included this anecdote:
"On another occasion, I jumped one directly over the city of Paris and fired all my ammo, but he was only smoking heavily after a long chase over the town. Assuming I was getting 10 percent hits, that airplane must have had 200 holes in it. It was a rugged machine."

His technique was to aim for the front of the plane:
"Its most novel feature was the oil cooler system which was a number of finned tubes shaped into a ring of tubes a little larger in diameter than the cooling fan. This ring was fitted into the rounded front portion of the cowling just aft of the fan.

I don't think this was a good idea. For example, my principal aiming point was always the forward portion of an enemy ship; the engine, cockpit, wing root section. If you get any hits at all, even only a few, you're bound to put one or two slugs into the engine compartment. Having a couple of bullets riccochet off the engine block and tear up some ignition harness is not too bad at all, at least not fatal. But to have all those thin-walled oil cooling tubes ahead of the engine is bad news. Any hits or riccochets in the engine section are bound to puncture the oil tubes. Then the whole engine is immersed in oil spray, and sometimes it would flash over into a fire. All of the 12 Focke-Wulfs that I shot down sent off a trail of dense, boiling oil smoke heavy enough to fog up my gun camera lens and windshield if I were so close."

M2morris
04-04-2008, 11:16 PM
Originally posted by Skycat_2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M2morris:
I might have to change my convergence then or something because I was in P-47 at max alt on the Norway map I think it was, against some FW 190s and I would get right on a six and cut-loose with all 8 fifties and it seemed like that 190 was bullet-proof. I could get it to trail fuel and loose some pieces but it was hard to getem to go down, very hard.
Kit Carson's personal assessments of the Fw190A included this anecdote:
"On another occasion, I jumped one directly over the city of Paris and fired all my ammo, but he was only smoking heavily after a long chase over the town. Assuming I was getting 10 percent hits, that airplane must have had 200 holes in it. It was a rugged machine."

His technique was to aim for the front of the plane:
"Its most novel feature was the oil cooler system which was a number of finned tubes shaped into a ring of tubes a little larger in diameter than the cooling fan. This ring was fitted into the rounded front portion of the cowling just aft of the fan.

I don't think this was a good idea. For example, my principal aiming point was always the forward portion of an enemy ship; the engine, cockpit, wing root section. If you get any hits at all, even only a few, you're bound to put one or two slugs into the engine compartment. Having a couple of bullets riccochet off the engine block and tear up some ignition harness is not too bad at all, at least not fatal. But to have all those thin-walled oil cooling tubes ahead of the engine is bad news. Any hits or riccochets in the engine section are bound to puncture the oil tubes. Then the whole engine is immersed in oil spray, and sometimes it would flash over into a fire. All of the 12 Focke-Wulfs that I shot down sent off a trail of dense, boiling oil smoke heavy enough to fog up my gun camera lens and windshield if I were so close." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yep, roger that Skycat, preeshiate it. Case n
point: A while ago, I got a from-below behind and off to the side deflection shot at a 190 and flamed it by hitting the nose area. Trying from a six is hard as heck taking them down. I geuss if I get on one's six from now-on I will try to swing out for a deflection at the engine area. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Sillius_Sodus
04-04-2008, 11:25 PM
If you must see your target get shredded by the .50's, I suppose you could turn realistic gunnery off http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif Sure the rounds don't drop but if you are firing within ~200m they don't drop much anyway. The Japanese planes blow up real good!

zxwings
04-04-2008, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:

...and the mercy of your internet connection for online.
Could you explain it in detail? I've always wondered exactly how one's internet connection is relevant to the effect of his shooting.

M_Gunz
04-05-2008, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
didn't the later p-51 have a gyroscopic gunsite? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif You might try that. I believe it is modeled in il-2... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

You still have to keep the nose from wobbling and torquing or the dot won't settle.

In IL2 you can nail off the worst gyro effects just by lowering revs, there's less energy to
turn a pitch move into a curving yaw and pitch move that way. Then you can crank the revs
back up on exit.

Skycat_2
04-05-2008, 12:26 AM
Re: relevance of internet connection: Have you ever had an enemy plane in front of you suddenly warp to another part of the sky?

M_Gunz
04-05-2008, 12:49 AM
that's a net lag effect

ever shot somebody in front of you while he was putting shots into you from behind?
that took a connect from australia one time. deep in the yellow type lag.

or shot by a plane facing away from you 45 degrees? -- makes it hard to time the defense.

UgoRipley
04-05-2008, 01:43 AM
Originally posted by Skycat_2:
Re: relevance of internet connection: Have you ever had an enemy plane in front of you suddenly warp to another part of the sky?

Yes, many times, on some HL servers.
It's quite common, it can be due to poor connection, but it also looks like some kind of "cheating" done by the pursued pilot...did I say "Print Screen" ??

AnaK774
04-05-2008, 02:30 AM
Large steady ping is not really affecting gunnery results but high packet loss definately is.

If server don't receive packet containing damage caused to target package, it can't deliver it to damaged client --> no damage caused.

DKoor
04-05-2008, 03:56 AM
If I can connect one second burst on fighter-target he is out of action for sure. Good enough for me.

Bearcat99
04-05-2008, 06:15 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
I was flying the P40C Warhawk the other day, after flying the Spit Vb. Now the Warhawk has 0.50s right?

I found the warhawk guns much easier to aim and batter a 109 with that the Spitfire which needed a steady hand otherwise most of your cannons are lost.

Even not pinpoint aiming, I could spray the small area and bust something on a 109. You won`t chew wings off, but aim for the cockpit and engine area and it isn`t long before he`s smoking or pked. I tend to keep my convergence at 200 at the mo. The guns felt light compared to the Spit cannon, but I got 2 kills surprisingly easy.

The P-40 is a bvery stable platform, much moreso than the P-51...


Originally posted by M2morris:
I might have to change my convergence then or something because I was in P-47 at max alt on the Norway map I think it was, against some FW 190s and I would get right on a six and cut-loose with all 8 fifties and it seemed like that 190 was bullet-proof. I could get it to trail fuel and loose some pieces but it was hard to getem to go down, very hard. On other maps, the fiftes were more damage-causing, it seems like it matters what map you are on.Is that true Bearcat? About what map you are on as far as gun difficulty?

From straight 6 it is always tough to down German birds... even with 8 50s... I have my convergence set between 150 & 225 depending on the plane. I dont think the map has much to do with it... I think it is more a matter of AC & settings... and for online.. connection as well.


Originally posted by stalkervision:
didn't the later p-51 have a gyroscopic gunsite? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif You might try that. I believe it is modeled in il-2... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Yes.. and it works quite well too...


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
P-51 is high power torquey and sensitive to trim.

If you don't slow down or speed up much once you are starting your firing run then you stay in
trim while shooting. EDIT - Ooops, that's firing run you did trim for! Trim for combat speed
and stay near that at least when you shoot, or retrim for the shot.
It's easier to have a shooting speed as well as a convergence range and know the +/- speed
that won't leave the nose wobbly on you.

If you run 70-80% rpm and not too fast and you can turn a smaller radius -and- have less TORQUE.

EDIT - Maneuver speed for the P-51 was about 250 mph, IIRC.

P-51 gunsight even has the little slip ball under it.

Look at it this way. If the nose only wanders when you go to shoot then what changed?
If the nose wanders all the time the add lots of filter to your stick sensitivities.

Maybe just add the filter anyway? It really helps without limiting your control authority or
leaving your stick sensitivity get radically coarse with 'hard' pulls. I pick filter.

Rgr that Gunz.. since I just did a reinstall of everything from scratch I have been fiddling with my stick settings and just tweaked the filtering.

Enforcer572005
04-05-2008, 07:52 AM
My experience has been that the concentrated guns in the nose of the P-38 (even when the 20 is out)and especially the P-80 (been flying alot in my 1947 East/West scenario Im making) are pretty effective and require only very short bursts.

I have to get pretty close anyway to hit anybody....I'm lousy at gunnery, so I try to do the "fill your gunsight with them" approach.

chicondaman
04-05-2008, 08:06 AM
I notice the bouncing piper all the time in my fav hellcat. I never thought of lowering the rpms before a targeting run. I usually just try to make sure I accelerate right at the before the moment I hit the trigger. That steadies things when I time it right.

ElAurens
04-05-2008, 08:18 AM
Just to clear things up, the P40C has two syncronized .50 Brownings in the nose, and two .30 (.30-06 Springfield to be exact) Brownings in each wing.

And yes the P40 is probably the most stable US gun platform in the game.

And a really pretty aircraft as well...

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Tachyon1000
04-05-2008, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Are not as bad as some think.

http://star.walagata.com/w/bearcat/4796389.avi

Note that that is the P-51B. So it really is all a matter of stability and actually hitting what you are aiming at... that and the mercy of your internet connection for online.

For some reason, I can't see the video at all. It's 12 seconds long, right? I get audio but no video.

Xiolablu3
04-05-2008, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Just to clear things up, the P40C has two syncronized .50 Brownings in the nose, and two .30 (.30-06 Springfield to be exact) Brownings in each wing.

And yes the P40 is probably the most stable US gun platform in the game.

And a really pretty aircraft as well...

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I would add that the P47 is 'as stable' in my opinion.

The P51 is a little too wobbly for me. I find it very hard to shoot accurately with the Mustang, the nose wanders too much.

Choctaw111
04-05-2008, 02:26 PM
They aren't that bad. As long as you shoot close to your convergence, they are very effective...even deadly.

TinyTim
04-05-2008, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
The 50s in this sim ... are not as bad as some think.


They are not bad at all! One of the most powerful weapons for sure. But... for the gazzilionth time, they just don't light things up as they should.

Lack of incendiary effect is offset by AP overkill (IMO). Still, a good weapon. Wrongly modelled, but good.

zxwings
04-05-2008, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by Skycat_2:
Re: relevance of internet connection: Have you ever had an enemy plane in front of you suddenly warp to another part of the sky?
Yeshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif that definitely makes shooting - aiming, actually - very difficult. But forgive me for being fussy, it is not really related to the effect, or the result, of your shooting after you have opened fire upon a good aim in the absence of warping http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Originally posted by AnaK774:
Large steady ping is not really affecting gunnery results but high packet loss definately is.

If server don't receive packet containing damage caused to target package, it can't deliver it to damaged client --> no damage caused.
I see http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif So the packets go first to the server and then to the other player's machine.

M2morris
04-06-2008, 02:08 AM
Originally posted by Sillius_Sodus:
If you must see your target get shredded by the .50's, I suppose you could turn realistic gunnery off http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif Sure the rounds don't drop but if you are firing within ~200m they don't drop much anyway. The Japanese planes blow up real good!
Yeah baby, I did just that. I turned-off realistic gunnery and I tore them up. Wow, I had never EVER after all these years turned off realistic gunnery and wow man that is a big difference. I mean becasue I was chasing these 190s at high altitude again in my P47, I would manage to get on one's six, keeping up as high as I could; up around 11000 meters, and I wuold just light em up on this guy. ALL EIGHT FIFTIES. And he would just roll over and leak fuel and dive away. Man, I know what a .50 Cal can do to something, and thers no way anything can stand up to 8-EIGHT of them from 500 feet. Not even a tank could take that. Well anyway, like you said, the rounds didnt drop away from gravity, I just fired without having to consider that fact, and it is like arcade shooting. And wammo they went down too, wnigs flying off, pieces flying, parts and flames and spiriling death dives. But I wish my bullets had more effect like that with realistic gunnery turned on. I mean at least some-what geeze. I think the fifty cal rounds dont have realistic effects in the game. Waaa

Mysticpuma2003
04-07-2008, 01:38 AM
Ok, I haven't always been on the side of the .50 cal. They were weak, scatter-gun and useless........no, no they really weren't...ever!

I've said this before and I'll say it again.

Load up your plane (I flew the '47, honest she's a babe!) and head off into the skies.

Now, I use to sneak up on a 109 or 190 and unload a stream of ammo, and see two or three little speckles fall off the plane, before he turned around and either killed me or I zoomed away!

"The .50's are porked!" I'd yell.

So I started watching the tracks back, and was frustrated to see that only a few of my bullets were hitting because of the convergence I'd set. In the '47, because the guns are wide (compared to the P-38 all close together), convergence is very important to be set correctly, I presume the same for the '51.

So, I went offline and set up 2xQMB with a 110vP47 and 109vP47.

I then set my convergence at what I considered to be optimal (wrongly) and went into battle. Now as I got 'The shot' and started to fire, I would replay the track and see what was actually happening with my bullets and where they were converging.
To be honest, I usually started firing too soon, which meant that the stray bullet would hit the EA, but then he would be aware and start his tactial maneuvers, and I'd lost the element of suprise and also the kill.

After about 10 missions, I have now got my convergence at 200 for the MG and 225 for the Cannon (although they are all '50's).

I have seen wings ripped off the enemy, thick smoke, fuel leaks, grey smoke and also I have seen a lot of planes that I have raked with fire, appearing to be undamaged, but the pilot bails, because in-fact I have have cause major damage to their plane.

I have to say now, there is nothing wrong with the '50's, it really is a case of spending a little time setting up your planes convergence, and then you really will see the damage the '47's 8x50 or the 51's 6x50.cal can actually do!

Give it a go, it really does make a difference, but you must set the convergence, so that it hits when you would normally fire and this can be worked out by examining your tracks.

Of course if you want an easy life.....just fly Axis http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Cheers, MP

M_Gunz
04-07-2008, 11:40 AM
Anyone can run with arcade=1 and see their hits clearly. You can run full tracks with arcade=1.

VMF-214_HaVoK
04-07-2008, 11:50 AM
They aren't that bad. As long as you shoot close to your convergence, they are very effective...even deadly.

+1

UKD_T.H.O.R.
04-07-2008, 11:53 AM
I can't view the video... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif


I have no problem with .50 cals in IL2. As TinyTim (TigerTalon) said, they lack incendiary power, and things don't lit up as they should.

In addition, their tracers are very small and sometimes hard to notice. Same goes for strikes on enemy aircraft. When you compare this with other planes, it is quite obvious and easy to follow tracers to score a hot on the enemy.


THIS IS HOW GOOD .50 CALS ARE ONLINE:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110...091014406#3091014406 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=3091014406&r=3091014406#3091014406)

EDIT: Trim your nose down in P-51 and it will transform into stable firing platform. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

GH_Klingstroem
04-07-2008, 02:30 PM
also check this out!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
http://www.50calibersixguns.com/Downloads.html ( Not for you Bearcat as I know you already know about these files...) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Especially have a look at the file called

"P51 gunnery practice. Using convergence and gunsight view to get maximum damage! (avi file)"

Some of these files are AVI files (right click on them and click "save as".

However most of them are *.ntrk files and need to be downloaded and put in ur "records" folder in Il2. Watch them closely!

Have fun!

Cheers

Bearcat99
04-07-2008, 04:30 PM
Hey Kling I like that theme on your home page... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif I alays like BT & the MGs..

BadA1m
04-07-2008, 05:36 PM
I have a couple of tips that apply to almost any plane. First, try a bit of negative trim, the backpressure that you need to keep on the stick helps to stabilize the twitchy planes (this is not my Idea, but I don't remember where it came from). The other is watch your trigger control, just like with a pistol, if you try to "snatch" the trigger at just the right second, you will invariably jerk the stick and just like with a pistol, you will miss. Trust your sight picture and sqeeeeeeze.

crucislancer
04-07-2008, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by BadA1m:
I have a couple of tips that apply to almost any plane. First, try a bit of negative trim, the backpressure that you need to keep on the stick helps to stabilize the twitchy planes (this is not my Idea, but I don't remember where it came from). The other is watch your trigger control, just like with a pistol, if you try to "snatch" the trigger at just the right second, you will invariably jerk the stick and just like with a pistol, you will miss. Trust your sight picture and sqeeeeeeze.

Excellent advice. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

fordfan25
04-07-2008, 10:00 PM
Id would like to see them have brighter tracers and more incenuary effect. I dont know how it is to people with high end control set ups but for me the planes are a little twitchy as others have said. i have to tune my control curevs low and flat to allow for any kind of gunnery wich hurts me in a dog fight.

Schwarz.13
04-08-2008, 04:12 AM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Are not as bad as some think.

http://star.walagata.com/w/bearcat/4796389.avi

Note that that is the P-51B. So it really is all a matter of stability and actually hitting what you are aiming at... that and the mercy of your internet connection for online.

That vid doesn't work for me either (i get the sound but no picture) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Anyway, here is an excellent video made by Waldo Pepper which should help convince people of the effectiveness of .50s:

Choppin' (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-2537671134226307336)

BTW - i think those are FW190s at the start of the video (i'm sure Waldo said so too)!

*Where is Waldo these days???*

DKoor
04-08-2008, 06:22 AM
Originally posted by TinyTim:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
The 50s in this sim ... are not as bad as some think.


They are not bad at all! One of the most powerful weapons for sure. But... for the gazzilionth time, they just don't light things up as they should.

Lack of incendiary effect is offset by AP overkill (IMO). Still, a good weapon. Wrongly modelled, but good. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I have nothing to add to the actual discussion - however it's nice to see you again. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

UKD_T.H.O.R.
04-08-2008, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by Schwarz.13:
Note that that is the P-51B. So it really is all a matter of stability and actually hitting what you are aiming at... that and the mercy of your internet connection for online.

That vid doesn't work for me either (i get the sound but no picture) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Anyway, here is an excellent video made by Waldo Pepper which should help convince people of the effectiveness of .50s:

Choppin' (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-2537671134226307336)

BTW - i think those are FW190s at the start of the video (i'm sure Waldo said so too)!

*Where is Waldo these days???*

Excellent shooting, but - MY EYES!!!!!!!! Why in Earth did he shoot at B-17s with P-51? With their crapy FM modeling, he should have gone for Ju-88s or He-111s...

DKoor
04-08-2008, 01:48 PM
And yes about some actual tracks - here is a P-40M vs He-111 formation (http://www.esnips.com/doc/7bed0e22-1bc3-4ed4-b270-f3ecfcdefa4c/DKoor40M-4xHe111-405) recorded under V4.05.
I shot down 4 of them with one load of ammo, one of them blew in mid-air, I musta hit something important (perhaps bomb load?), was a nice sight http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.
Although He-111's aren't tough as B-17's they are still pretty tough, so...

Tater-SW-
04-08-2008, 04:45 PM
That attack vs B-17s points out how screwy DMs are. I can't get bettys to burn that reliably. Or Vals. And certainly not Ki-21s.


BTW, I'm one to always point out the 50s are wrong, but I don't think their overall effectiveness is, just that the belting is wrong.

Monguse
04-08-2008, 05:28 PM
Posted here too, with pictures to boot.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/8231039685/p/3

crucislancer
04-08-2008, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
That attack vs B-17s points out how screwy DMs are. I can't get bettys to burn that reliably. Or Vals. And certainly not Ki-21s.

Like I said before, I really think it's where you hit and your convergence that makes the difference.

A couple of months ago I was playing around with a Dgen campaign, early PTO flying the F4F-3. I shot down 4 Bettys in one mission, all going down in flames.

I seem to recall shooting down Vals without too much difficulty as well.

Certainly there are times that I'll chew on a plane until my ammo is used up and he's still in the air, but that's just me not getting the correct shot in, either too close or too far away, and directly behind.

While there might be something to the fact that the ammo belting is wrong, what we do have in game does work. No doubts about that.

Dustysquareback
04-08-2008, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
That attack vs B-17s points out how screwy DMs are. I can't get bettys to burn that reliably. Or Vals. And certainly not Ki-21s.


BTW, I'm one to always point out the 50s are wrong, but I don't think their overall effectiveness is, just that the belting is wrong.

Yup. This may have already been pointed out many times - but I think this further illustrates WHY the belting is wrong.

Does anyone believe that Oleg would intentionally pork the .50's? Seems unlikely to me, and the fact that the US extensively used API heavy belting is written EVERYwhere, so I doubt it was oversight either.

I think the issue is the simplicity of the damage model. Obviously any damage model is a simplification of vulnerable parts. My suspicion is that when Oleg tried using an accurate API load, it made it WAY too easy to flame planes. So, he settled for over modeling the structural damage and under modeling the incendiary effect.

M_Gunz
04-08-2008, 08:43 PM
We have the same .50's that the series started out with and the ammo used -- in Russia.

Tater-SW-
04-08-2008, 08:57 PM
With pure API it is easier to flame japanese planes. That's about it.

I have tested (arcade mode) vs the Ki-21, and they are nearly impossible to burn even covered with overlapping hits over the entire plane. I always kill the pilot before it catches fire.

B-25s, and the US heavies simply burst into flames with stock 50 cal in game, but the betty does not. Something is wrong DM wise.

GH_Klingstroem
04-09-2008, 04:07 AM
Im with you here Tater!

I have tested the pure API belting for the 0.50 cal in il2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif and must say that Jap planes go up in flames easier however not much of a difference for german planes unless you get really really close where they might catch fire just a bit easier, other than that, not much of a difference...

Anyway, that must not be spoken about here... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

TinyTim
04-09-2008, 04:31 AM
Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
That attack vs B-17s points out how screwy DMs are. I can't get bettys to burn that reliably. Or Vals. And certainly not Ki-21s.


With you there. That's because of two buggy areas of this sim inerfering: wrong heavy MG belting and wrong DM modelling of fuel tanks (Ki-21 a lot harder to set aflame than B-25 for example as you mentioned)

Gotta question (a bit OT tho):

Was there IRL a special armor or any kind of other protection used to protect fuel tanks on any plane specifically from rear (like armored seat for the pilot for example)? It *seems* to me that many fuel tanks in this sim are way harder to set ablaze from rear. Would have to test tho.

ElAurens
04-09-2008, 05:39 AM
Interesting.

Whenever I need a screenshot of a burning aircraft, for mostly non-IL2 photoshop fun, I always choose the Betty as my flaming aircraft of choice. Set one as friendly in QMB, attack from above with P40E, aim at the wing roots, Bingo! Flames up every time. Piece of cake.

Sometimes I think that there are those who think that Japanese aircraft should just explode whenever a blue painted aircraft appears within 20 miles of it.

Oh well.

M4Sherman4
04-09-2008, 10:13 AM
The .50 cal is very affective if you aim for 1:Fuel lines 2:cockpit 3:front sector of the Aircraft. If you don't believe me grab a B-25 and get a FW,Zeke or a 109 on your tail and shoot him in one of those areas

Tater-SW-
04-09-2008, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Interesting.

Whenever I need a screenshot of a burning aircraft, for mostly non-IL2 photoshop fun, I always choose the Betty as my flaming aircraft of choice. Set one as friendly in QMB, attack from above with P40E, aim at the wing roots, Bingo! Flames up every time. Piece of cake.

Sometimes I think that there are those who think that Japanese aircraft should just explode whenever a blue painted aircraft appears within 20 miles of it.

Oh well.

I don't think that at all. For such testing Iusually fire from dead six as the goal is to put as many rounds through as possible. It is rare for them to burn compared to other damage. The worst is the Sally though, it virtually never catches fire.

I'm less concerned with the flammability of the G4M than with the B-25, and other US bombers.

Using the same 50 cals, the US planes burn with virtually any hits, far easier to set afire.

DKoor
04-09-2008, 11:37 AM
It has been proved by good tests by tigertalon (now TinyTim http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) that 7,62mm (.303cal) has more incendiary power in game than 12,7mm (.50cal).
There is a good thread about it on General Discussion here.

ElAurens
04-09-2008, 03:33 PM
i've never shot at an American bomber with a .50 Browning armed aircraft Tater, (I hate like on like combat...)

I'll give it a try.

DKoor, I have always thought the .303 British round, as depicted in our sim is fairly over modeled. Excluding Russian rifle caliber guns it is by far the most powerful weapon in the thirty caliber class, when in reality is should be behind the US .30-06 Springfield and the German 8X57JS.

M_Gunz
04-09-2008, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by TinyTim:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
That attack vs B-17s points out how screwy DMs are. I can't get bettys to burn that reliably. Or Vals. And certainly not Ki-21s.


With you there. That's because of two buggy areas of this sim inerfering: wrong heavy MG belting and wrong DM modelling of fuel tanks (Ki-21 a lot harder to set aflame than B-25 for example as you mentioned)

Gotta question (a bit OT tho):

Was there IRL a special armor or any kind of other protection used to protect fuel tanks on any plane specifically from rear (like armored seat for the pilot for example)? It *seems* to me that many fuel tanks in this sim are way harder to set ablaze from rear. Would have to test tho. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You might try to get a look into where the tanks are, how much airplane is between the rear
and the tanks themselves and for example if the gear struts fold up behind them. I remember
shooting Tu-2 engines from behind and wondering why they're so invulnerable till someone did
post screenies of the gear coming down from its' stowed positions behind the engines.. doh!

While a trailing six position at co-speed may allow more sustained fire, it's also the worst
place I know for trying to penetrate to the front of a plane. Deflection gets more damage
on average without using as much ammo unless it's done with a heavy trigger finger.

TinyTim
04-09-2008, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
That attack vs B-17s points out how screwy DMs are. I can't get bettys to burn that reliably. Or Vals. And certainly not Ki-21s.


With you there. That's because of two buggy areas of this sim inerfering: wrong heavy MG belting and wrong DM modelling of fuel tanks (Ki-21 a lot harder to set aflame than B-25 for example as you mentioned)

Gotta question (a bit OT tho):

Was there IRL a special armor or any kind of other protection used to protect fuel tanks on any plane specifically from rear (like armored seat for the pilot for example)? It *seems* to me that many fuel tanks in this sim are way harder to set ablaze from rear. Would have to test tho. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You might try to get a look into where the tanks are, how much airplane is between the rear
and the tanks themselves and for example if the gear struts fold up behind them. I remember
shooting Tu-2 engines from behind and wondering why they're so invulnerable till someone did
post screenies of the gear coming down from its' stowed positions behind the engines.. doh!

While a trailing six position at co-speed may allow more sustained fire, it's also the worst
place I know for trying to penetrate to the front of a plane. Deflection gets more damage
on average without using as much ammo unless it's done with a heavy trigger finger. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point. Maybe I'll sit down and test it, although I doubt DM takes such thing into account... but I could be wrong.

BTW, Tu-2 DM is missing starbord inner fuel tank, I hope you were not aiming for it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v662/aegeeaddict/4071%20Fire%20Testing/PatternTu2.jpg

M_Gunz
04-09-2008, 04:07 PM
I was using nose cannon just against the engine pods that time long ago.

The DM is run through 3D models as we have seen posted esp years ago. When a part is hit the
bullet either destroys that part or stops in that part. If not it continues straight as there
isn't enough CPU to determine deflection of the round.
It's a very basic DM that is also far beyond what other flight sims I know use. I had a ship
sim, the Great Naval Battles: Fury in the Pacific that had more detailed DM and even repair
crews but that did not move so fast as a flight sim. Some day I'll get a fast enough CPU to
run it again under DOSBOX and get more than a slide show... I really liked the SSI GNB sim.

DKoor
04-09-2008, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
i've never shot at an American bomber with a .50 Browning armed aircraft Tater, (I hate like on like combat...)

I'll give it a try.

DKoor, I have always thought the .303 British round, as depicted in our sim is fairly over modeled. Excluding Russian rifle caliber guns it is by far the most powerful weapon in the thirty caliber class, when in reality is should be behind the US .30-06 Springfield and the German 8X57JS. I don't know. I'm pathetic as a weapon expert, you can sell me anything http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

The main thing is, we can probably shot down any single airborne target with any weapon in the sim on realistic settings, regardless of the target toughness or fighter weapon/ammo load.
That is my expertise on a matter.

Of course I noticed, just like the rest of us, some obvious differences like ability to set things aflame with different weapons.

At least that is true few patches ago, when I really played this game... I can't be judge any more since I haven't really tested anything in 4.08/4.09.

Tater-SW-
04-09-2008, 05:03 PM
elAurens, you have if you've ever flown a japanese plane armed with 50 cals like a Ki-43-Ic since they were given the same exact weapon.

ElAurens
04-09-2008, 05:55 PM
Same ammo loadout as well?

Of course, with a Ki 43 I never live long enough to shoot down a deathstar B25...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Blutarski2004
04-09-2008, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Hey Kling I like that theme on your home page... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif I alays like BT & the MGs..


..... Yup! Booker T and the Machine Guns.

;-]

DKoor
04-10-2008, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
deathstar B25 Excellent description in one word. It really is a Deathstar to Zeros and Oscars.

uf_josse
04-10-2008, 10:07 AM
Ki431c have japanese ho103....

Ki43II model have us 0.05 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif so..... had http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

BOA_Allmenroder
04-12-2008, 04:18 PM
Was at Sun N Fun in Florida today and one of the P51s on display had the port wing gun panels open so you could see them.

The interesting thing was the boresighting/convergence settings that were listed on the panel.

There were two sets of instructions/directions (actually some sort of alignment instructions) for the weapons: one for 250 yards and one for 300 yards. It looked like almost angle settings for each of the three guns for each convergence above. The pictogram on the panel had numbers for each gun at each range (250 or 300) then had a line drawn from each gun intersecting at the appropriate range and some sort of line angle for the K14 Gunsight as well (the wording mentioned K14 but I can't remember the exact text).

But the Header clearly stated "Convergence" in big Yellow lettering.

I wish I had my digital camera with me to take a picture.

M2morris
04-12-2008, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by BOA_Allmenroder:
Was at Sun N Fun in Florida today and one of the P51s on display had the port wing gun panels open so you could see them.

The interesting thing was the boresighting/convergence settings that were listed on the panel.

There were two sets of instructions/directions (actually some sort of alignment instructions) for the weapons: one for 250 yards and one for 300 yards. It looked like almost angle settings for each of the three guns for each convergence above. The pictogram on the panel had numbers for each gun at each range (250 or 300) then had a line drawn from each gun intersecting at the appropriate range and some sort of line angle for the K14 Gunsight as well (the wording mentioned K14 but I can't remember the exact text).

But the Header clearly stated "Convergence" in big Yellow lettering.

I wish I had my digital camera with me to take a picture.
Intresting stuff, man I too wish you wouldve had your camera for that one.

R_Target
04-12-2008, 08:08 PM
There is a clear shot of this panel in Aero Detail #13.

AFJ_Panther
04-13-2008, 01:22 AM
Pic of above mentioned Gun Panel
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh155/355th_Panther/image24.jpg