PDA

View Full Version : Are the .50s less powerful in 3.02b?



StellarRat
12-08-2004, 12:28 PM
It seems they are not nearly as dangerous as they were in 2.04 or even 3.0. Am I imagining things? I used to be able to cripple planes with short bursts (snap shots) now I can't do anything unless I hit them with one or two seconds of well aimed fire. My beloved P-47 seems to be useless for B and Z now.

If something has changed has anyone reported it to Oleg?

Abbuzze
12-08-2004, 12:34 PM
Maybe you are just a bit out of practice.
Or you just have a bad time at the moment, sad, but it happens (I know this)
Got a Zero yesterday with a 80 deg deflectionshot, it started to burn and lost a wing immediately.
I noticed no difference...

VW-IceFire
12-08-2004, 12:35 PM
Nothing has changed to my knowledge.

What you describe has been present since back in the 1.2 days (previous to that the .50cals were ****). Sometimes it takes 2-3 seconds on target...or as the case was last night, a brief burst on a Ki-84 caused a engine fire and destroyed the controls all in one glancing blow. Certainly that pilot was not under the impression that .50cal is weak.

Again, 2-3 seconds of fire is typical since they became decent and the P-47 is still quite the BNZ machine. I've seen several guys do very well with it recently. A few hits there, a few hits here...sometimes its up in smoke in a second another time it takes a few times to get the bandit.

BTW: What you may have noticed is a change in the global DM system. All guns would be affected. Personally I notice less structural failures than the previous patch...but its got to be a small difference. The biggest killers are still fire, control, and pilot kills.

StellarRat
12-08-2004, 12:45 PM
I'm having a lot more trouble killing the LW planes since 3.0. Maybe it is the DM, I don't know. I think something has changed.

Bremspropeller
12-08-2004, 12:46 PM
Uhm, the 50's seem right to me...just LF'ed a Zero two days ago. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

StellarRat
12-08-2004, 12:48 PM
Zeros don't count. A BB gun can shoot one down.

Korolov
12-08-2004, 12:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
What you describe has been present since back in the 1.2 days (previous to that the .50cals were ****) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to disagree with you on this statement, Icefire.

A few months ago, a friend of mine had gotten FB, but he forgot to get the Gold pack/AEP to go with it. So I made a separate install of FB so we could fly a bit. Since he's a big fan of the P-47, I selected one of the default P-47 coops over Balaton and went out. I was expecting the .50 cals to be worthless, but was surprised to find that the weapons were absolutely devistating. 109s were lighting up and coming apart from just a few hits; 210s broke up even easier.

Ever since then, I've had a hard time believing that the .50 cals were as 'nerfed' as they were claimed to be.

To the original poster, convergence is a big issue now. If you try the P-38, you'll find that it can easily take down enemy planes with a few hits at just about any distance. The P-51 and P-47 almost require a absolute distance from the target for convergence.

Bremspropeller
12-08-2004, 03:24 PM
Oh....well, I already thought that I was a great shot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

But korolov seems to be right: since I wasn't at convergence range, I ripped BOTH of his wings simulanously (LF'ed him..).
Well, just like any LF fighter, his Zeke was a dog up there but with decreasing alt he got **** fast...as you can imagine http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Vipez-
12-08-2004, 04:05 PM
seems pretty **** powerfull (like before i mean), try lower your convergence (personally I use about 150 meters in the Jug, works like dream..

LeadSpitter_
12-08-2004, 04:34 PM
they definatly changed, Dont listen to these people they lite up a zero fine bleh bleh.

Of course they do but try flying vs german or russian ac compaired to previous patches. Something seems screwy withalot of the ground items as well halftracks wooden boats rocket strenght bomb strenght. It reminds me of version fb 1.2 .50 strenght

Dont forget its beta so they are just adjusting things

faustnik
12-08-2004, 04:49 PM
For this time only, I agree with Leadspitter.

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

SeaFireLIV
12-08-2004, 05:19 PM
Funny. When flying the I16 in 3.02b and shooting at an F2, it seemed to me that my shots didn`t appear so effective as before, I`ve noticed this in 2 missions so far... But I don`t complain, I keep flying because i`m not sure what it might really be.

Strange how certain people immediately blame it on weaker 0.50s. It`s a very selfish, self -absorbed attitude : `My guns don`t appear so good - the 0.50s are nerfed!`

Perhaps you should try different guns of different aircraft first so you GET an UNBIASED idea of what`s REALLY happening. Perhaps ALL guns are nerfed, perhaps the model strength of all aircraft are slightly stronger, perhaps the convergence default is changed...

Perhaps NOTHING is wrong at all! It`s possible.

Sad to also see those who will immediately jump on the `0.50s are nerfed` bandwagon without a moments pause, because that`s what they WANT to think (as with Leadspitter)! It`s such an easy hook to catch certain fish with isn`t it?

Korolov
12-08-2004, 05:20 PM
I recommend anyone curious about how the .50 cals are working currently, to review these tracks. Please note that I took the tracks in the 3.02bm new exe.

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_50caldemos.zip

faustnik
12-08-2004, 05:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:

Sad to also see those who will immediately jump on the `0.50s are nerfed` bandwagon without a moments pause, because that`s what they _WANT_ to think (as with Leadspitter)! It`s such an easy hook to catch certain fish with isn`t it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Leadspitter didn't say they were nerfed, stop with the sef-righteous pomposity. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif He's just discussing the subject.

SeaFireLIV
12-08-2004, 05:37 PM
Unlikely. Within a week this`ll turn into a flamerfest and be all over the Pacific forum. Pomposity, eh? Look who`s talking.

faustnik
12-08-2004, 05:42 PM
I don't get pissy with people for discussing a subject Seafire, or label them whiners for bringing up a question.

This is a discussion board, isn't it?

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
12-08-2004, 05:50 PM
Oi!!Put that Fakking light aaaaaut!!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/tHeBaLrOgRoCkS/hodgesmain.jpg

StellarRat
12-08-2004, 05:52 PM
The only reason I asked about the .50s is because I almost always fly American, so I have nothing else to compare to. Although I can say the LW planes are still blowing the **** out of me without any problem while I seem to not be getting many kills on them now.

Atomic_Marten
12-08-2004, 06:41 PM
Eh. I think they are good weapon for fighter. Very well balanced too.

They are still very good.. I don't spend much time using them so I really cannot tell if they are different from 2.04. But I have just practiced carrier landing with H-Cat few moments ago, and friendly group of Dauntlesses were flying in front of me. I dived a little and give one of them short burst and he start fuel leaking, another short burst and his right aileron fell off..

Also in the QMB I did fight against KI84Cs in P51. In 2 head-on pass I managed to flame two on them also with short bursts.

Gibbage1
12-08-2004, 07:01 PM
The only real comparison is to test the P-39 Q-10, Yak, Ki-84 and the 109G6 (all with 2 .50's in the nose) and shoot stuff. They all have about equal power. The Japanese stuff seams a little weaker, but the German stuff seams a little bit more powerfull, but just a little. You truly cant compair 6-8 HMG's with anything else because nothing non-american can even come close to that many MG's. Maybe a Mig with gunpods, buts thats still just 4.

So fly the QMB with the aircraft listed and shoot targets up. Get a feel for all the guns and come back.

Bull_dog_
12-08-2004, 07:11 PM
I fly em all and I am finding that I am killing about the same number of enemies offline that I was before overall but I do believe that some of the Damage Models have been changed.

I keep a version of 2.02 on my hard drive...one of those leaked betas....that, to me, was the definative version. I don't believe much has changed with the .50's as much as I find it a lot harder to start 109's on fire.

I think the hmgs have been a little on the light side, not a lot, since the convergence was fixed. Most online kills consist of smokers that land and i get credit. One pass kills are a very rare event except on Zekes. Online, those .50's just aren't very good and haven't been. The can aggrevate an opponent and make flying difficult for them but lack a quick knockout punch that will put enemy aircraft down quickly. The result is a prolonged, multi pass dogfight that invariably attracts way too much attention from other players. One of the big reasons I like a Spit or a C corsair is the quick killing power...only US or British planes capable of it.

Oleg, how bout give us one of those Hellcats with the 20mm cannons in place of the inboard HMGs!

LeadSpitter_
12-08-2004, 09:06 PM
well offline tracks mean nothing ai bail from a squirt of anygun and will flop around.

just like static ground targets vs online static ground targets things are very different with dms.

WUAF_Badsight
12-08-2004, 09:10 PM
this is the truth

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The only real comparison is to test the P-39 Q-10, Yak, Ki-84 and the 109G6 (all with 2 .50's in the nose) and shoot stuff. They all have about equal power. The Japanese stuff seams a little weaker, but the German stuff seams a little bit more powerfull, but just a little. You truly cant compair 6-8 HMG's with anything else because nothing non-american can even come close to that many MG's. Maybe a Mig with gunpods, buts thats still just 4.

So fly the QMB with the aircraft listed and shoot targets up. Get a feel for all the guns and come back. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

at times i get shots 'just so" & i can wipe out plane controls in one pass with the fifty cals

other times i can really hammer a bandit with them & he fights on

im not talking about Zeros or Hayabusa's

Cyrano
12-08-2004, 09:33 PM
Offline and online will get you two dramatically different results with the .50's. Everyone who regularly flies "Red" online is coming to the same conclusion. Perhaps as some have mentioned it's a global DM thing with the beta patch that is most noticeable with the .50's or perhaps there was a decision to make them weaker. In any case they are. Does that mean they are useless? Absolutely not, but there are times as Badsight has reported that things just don't add up.

Tully__
12-08-2004, 09:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
well offline...ai bail from a squirt of anygun and will flop around.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LS, you still using Novice AI in QMB? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

VW-IceFire
12-08-2004, 09:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cyrano:
Offline and online will get you two dramatically different results with the .50's. Everyone who regularly flies "Red" online is coming to the same conclusion. Perhaps as some have mentioned it's a global DM thing with the beta patch that is most noticeable with the .50's or perhaps there was a decision to make them weaker. In any case they are. Does that mean they are useless? Absolutely not, but there are times as Badsight has reported that things just don't add up. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Same situation with the MG151/20. Something to do with netcode and lots of little bits flying around it seems to have trouble with. The shrapnel of the MG151/20 or the mass quantities of .50cal lead.

*shrug*

FatBoyHK
12-08-2004, 10:59 PM
I found the the 0.50 is actually BETTER in this patch, I think it is not because of the hitting power itself, but because it is now more depneds on your convegence setting... Now I can chop off FW anf BF much more easiler, comparing with the later patches usually I can only make them smoke, now I can break their wings or tails very often....

but on the other hand it is now more difficult to kill japs planes... mainly due to DM change, I heard that they are now less likely to catch on fire.

Korolov
12-09-2004, 12:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
well offline tracks mean nothing ai bail from a squirt of anygun and will flop around.

just like static ground targets vs online static ground targets things are very different with dms. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The result remains the same. Perhaps you didn't notice all the parts coming off, or that amazing shot I made with the Tbolt which cut-off that 109's wing.

To put more emphasis on my point, I flew a P-38 around and nailed about 7 bandits, then checked my gun stats. 1911 shots and 341 hits. Wow. I didn't realize that many of my shots were missing! Surely then, there's something wrong with the .50 cal! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

StellarRat
12-09-2004, 01:14 AM
OK, set convergence down to 170 from 350. Used magnified sight view to aim. Also, increased network speed from 56k to ISDN. .50s were quite deadly. I guess I'm OK with them now that I understand how to set them up.

Hetzer_II
12-09-2004, 01:28 AM
One Problem i see is that 6*0.50 is often more deadly online than 4*20 and 2*13 of the later Antons.... Should that be right??


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

FatBoyHK
12-09-2004, 01:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StellarRat:
OK, set convergence down to 170 from 350. Used magnified sight view to aim. Also, increased network speed from 56k to ISDN. .50s were quite deadly. I guess I'm OK with them now that I understand how to set them up. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


oh, so network setting has something to do with the power of 0.50?

jurinko
12-09-2004, 04:21 AM
recently a P40C destroyed my engine in 109G from 400m 1sec burst in Virtualpilots map.. I would not say they are weaker

JG77Von_Hess
12-09-2004, 04:28 AM
Ahh well.

Regards.

VH.

Sir.Robin-1337
12-09-2004, 05:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Are the .50s less powerful in 3.02b? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not on the Mustang.

VF-29_Sandman
12-09-2004, 06:03 AM
good shootin koro. and i remember flyin with u, ur ai's aint set to 'noob' either. did they change the convergance value in 3.02b..meaning, more spray at certain range in 38's or no?

NorrisMcWhirter
12-09-2004, 06:12 AM
Hi,

No change here. I was messing about in QMB with P47 vs 190s and the 190s lit up like a christmas tree/had a wing chopped off at convergence (200m) range. If you spray at 0.5km+ you don't get much effect, though.

Also shot down 5 Bettys in one flight in a co-op (Wildcat) the other night but, presumably, people will have us thinking that they don't 'count'

And, like Seafire suggests, if you want to see a truly underperforming weapon, try out the 151/20.

Cheers,
Norris

anarchy52
12-09-2004, 07:15 AM
I flew a few coops 3.02bm and:

I lost a wing in my 109 by 6 hits (yes, six hits) .50 cals from P-51

I flew a P-47 and killed FW's effortlessly...short burst at ~300+ (convergence set to 250) they lose wings...just disintegrated. Furthermore unlike that official US report that states that the only thing to do in P-47 when faced FW-190 is to dive away I found that I can easily beat 190 in both horizontal and vertical manuevers. Altitude was between 0 and 2000m. So if anyone thinks that .50 cals are WEAK or jug PORKED I suggest they pay a visit to a shrink...

P.S. I got bounced and hit by 190 in the fuselage and wing (snap roll induced by hit) and I still beat it easily at 0-1500m dogfight.

VF-29_Sandman
12-09-2004, 07:33 AM
mebby its just in the 38's...the jug's are especially lethal. 1 burst is enough to severely cripple almost anything short of a tank

Zen--
12-09-2004, 07:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:


To put more emphasis on my point, I flew a P-38 around and nailed about 7 bandits, then checked my gun stats. 1911 shots and 341 hits. Wow. I didn't realize that many of my shots were missing! Surely then, there's something wrong with the .50 cal! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats a good point Koro, people often confuse lack of hitting power with the fact that they really aren't hitting the target as much as they think they are. I am a poor shot with 50 cals and other guns like shvak or b20 simply because I spend so much time with the mg151/20. Its tempting for me to claim some of these guns are undermodelled, including the mg151/20, but if I check my gunstat I usually see where the error is.

For a time I thought the mg151/20 was undermodelled because I would spend 2-3 seconds pouring cannon fire into my target and then watch it fly off into the sunset, only later did it dawn on me that I had hit the target a mere 2-3 times. At the time of shooting it just seemed like forever and it defied logic how the target could not have been destroyed, but the numbers spoke for themselves...2-3 hits was all. What I got in the habit of doing online is checking gunstat after every pass so that I can keep a running tally of how many hits I score in any given attack...it's really opened my eyes to how this game works and allowed me to estimate the damage state of the target more accurately, as well as bring to light some interesting observations about aircraft DM.


The biggest thing I've seen online...people miss over 90% of the time with 50 cals. They aren't nearly as accurate as they seem based on my experience flying the jug and pony.

HayateAce
12-09-2004, 07:52 AM
OH BROTHER.

Someone posts that the .50s aren't getting the job done online and we get flooded with lufties who all of a sudden decide to fly allied one time and zoom around "effortlessly" and score kills on everything from the Hindenburg to the Queen Mary with 6 SHOTS. Yes you read it folks, 6 SHOTS.

Blah blah blah.

Nobody is going to believe your false claims and your agenda is completely transparent. Give it up. More and more allied players are now realising the online .50s are doing nothing, unless you hit in some stupid 2 meter convergence window. This is bogus. The guns should still do some decent damage on either side of this magic window of convergence.

That's why the US preferred these weapons. You didn't have to hit a tiny window to score a kill.

Nice try lufts, but the online .50s are porked.

anarchy52
12-09-2004, 08:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
OH BROTHER.

Someone posts that the .50s aren't getting the job done online and we get flooded with lufties who all of a sudden decide to fly allied one time and zoom around "effortlessly" and score kills on everything from the Hindenburg to the Queen Mary with 6 SHOTS...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

and then more **** deleted

I was shot down in 109 (my wing broke off) with 6 hits. By a P-51.
And yes, I DO have the track.

In coops I fly all planes, but in online wars I fly german planes.

Chanel505
12-09-2004, 08:33 AM
Hi

Think i have more success with Cal .50 if i trimm my aircraft constantly.

mynameisroland
12-09-2004, 08:55 AM
US aircraft kept using .50cal as the main armament for theri fighters/bombers for the same reason that they persisted in using the Sherman in all its various forms.

Cheaper, easier logistics, familiar, adequate if used in enough numbers - 8 x .50 cal vs 4 x 20mm read 5 x Sherman tanks vs 1 Panther.

Sounds anti American? its not meant to. I just cant stand posts that state .50 cals are porked and that they were much more effective otherwise the~US wouldnt have persisted with them.

That is not the case. Cannons were more effective. The RAF had the oppertunity to go all .50 cal and chose to have mixed .50 and cannon then all cannon. It was because Cannons were more effective. EVERY other nation thought so as well.

FatBoyHK
12-09-2004, 09:13 AM
I really don't have any problem with 0.50, they really done a good job for me, both on and offline... If I have my aiming right a short burst is what it take to blow my enemy out of the fight, either it is a smoky engine, a broken wing, an a@@ laughed off, control cables (this is the most frequent result I experienced), etc.... even if there is nothing visible they seem to be at pain just to fly straight, and present nothing more than a sitting duck for me....

and I am no expert, just started online for a week, but I am quite successful in WarCloud, Greatgreen (at least 1-1 kill-loss ratio, no bad for a starter ,I think http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif), etc... I rank 0.50 the no.1 factor of my (little) success... also I want to rank pony's speed as my second factor of success too... so, the point I would like to make is that, both of the "headline" arguements on this forum in these day, namely the pony's performance, and the hitting power of 0.50, is not sound at all.

FatBoyHK
12-09-2004, 09:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mynameisroland:
That is not the case. Cannons were more effective. The RAF had the oppertunity to go all .50 cal and chose to have mixed .50 and cannon then all cannon. It was because Cannons were more effective. EVERY other nation thought so as well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With all respect I am not in agreement with you, may be your point is historically correct in some prespective, but I found that MG is much better in A2A combat, at least in this game. May be it is down to personal perference, the situation you are in (Sudden attack previously unseen vs neck-to-neck fighting), and the thing you want to achieve (against light fighter vs against heavy fighter/bomber), etcetc...

The point I wanna make it, both MG and Cannon are good, just like what we experience in this game now, of course some will perfer one over another, but both of them are good enough to do the job (minus 151/20, it is really porked accroding to all sources and my own experience)

VW-IceFire
12-09-2004, 09:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FatBoyHK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mynameisroland:
That is not the case. Cannons were more effective. The RAF had the oppertunity to go all .50 cal and chose to have mixed .50 and cannon then all cannon. It was because Cannons were more effective. EVERY other nation thought so as well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With all respect I am not in agreement with you, may be your point is historically correct in some prespective, but I found that MG is much better in A2A combat, at least in this game. May be it is down to personal perference, the situation you are in (Sudden attack previously unseen vs neck-to-neck fighting), and the thing you want to achieve (against light fighter vs against heavy fighter/bomber), etcetc...

The point I wanna make it, both MG and Cannon are good, just like what we experience in this game now, of course some will perfer one over another, but both of them are good enough to do the job (minus 151/20, it is really porked accroding to all sources and my own experience) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You're right...its personal preference. I'd prefer the twin 20mm cannons on the Spitfire or the 20mm cannons on the FW190 (despite some odd anomalies) over having 6 .50cal. A snapshot 20mm blast is more likely to do damage than a snapshot .50cal stream. But I see the advantages of both...its easier to hit with .50cal...you just have to keep hitting to make up for the lower punch.

Preference...preference.

If you don't have success with one, try the other. Your style may suite the other. Or, you need to practice.

Back when the P-51 came out, it was the next best thing to having a Spitfire. So I made sure that I knew how to fly it and fly it well. I learned how to hit with the .50cals...this was when dispersion was 8x as high. I knew how to take my opponents down no matter what they were flying.

NorrisMcWhirter
12-09-2004, 11:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FatBoyHK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mynameisroland:
That is not the case. Cannons were more effective. The RAF had the oppertunity to go all .50 cal and chose to have mixed .50 and cannon then all cannon. It was because Cannons were more effective. EVERY other nation thought so as well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With all respect I am not in agreement with you, may be your point is historically correct in some prespective, but I found that MG is much better in A2A combat, at least in this game. May be it is down to personal perference, the situation you are in (Sudden attack previously unseen vs neck-to-neck fighting), and the thing you want to achieve (against light fighter vs against heavy fighter/bomber), etcetc...

The point I wanna make it, both MG and Cannon are good, just like what we experience in this game now, of course some will perfer one over another, but both of them are good enough to do the job (minus 151/20, it is really porked accroding to all sources and my own experience) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're right, it's horses for courses and mgs are good enough for most fighters but cannons will do the job more quickly if you are accurate enough.

The cannons vs banks of mgs is almost a never ending debate but you have to ask yourself why the USAF moved away from mgs after the war if they were so effective. And yep, there are more factors such as the weight of weaponry having less of an impact but why not just carry a lot more mgs?

20mm cannon seems to offer a very good compromise between punch, size, weight and accuracy so I suspect that the LW got it right almost from day one of the war.

Cheers,
Norris

Daiichidoku
12-09-2004, 11:37 AM
I fly the Jug in online Df servers a lot...heck, almost the only thing I fly...

Since the covergence fix on the 50s, I havent noticed any change in them, including 302bm...

Mostly you can expect go give fuel leaks, and minor damage to enemies, and occasionally take wings and do other nasty things

Mind you, I have my gun convergence at 500meters, but it works well for me....especially helps to deal with fools that go head on with my Jug....I can usually hit them before they can bring thier guns to bear on me with enough damage to kill em or hurt em enuff to escape without damage to myself

StellarRat
12-09-2004, 12:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zen--:

Thats a good point Koro, people often confuse lack of hitting power with the fact that they really aren't hitting the target as much as they think they are. I am a poor shot with 50 cals and other guns like shvak or b20 simply because I spend so much time with the mg151/20. Its tempting for me to claim some of these guns are undermodelled, including the mg151/20, but if I check my gunstat I usually see where the error is.

For a time I thought the mg151/20 was undermodelled because I would spend 2-3 seconds pouring cannon fire into my target and then watch it fly off into the sunset, only later did it dawn on me that I had hit the target a mere 2-3 times. At the time of shooting it just seemed like forever and it defied logic how the target could not have been destroyed, but the numbers spoke for themselves...2-3 hits was all. What I got in the habit of doing online is checking gunstat after every pass so that I can keep a running tally of how many hits I score in any given attack...it's really opened my eyes to how this game works and allowed me to estimate the damage state of the target more accurately, as well as bring to light some interesting observations about aircraft DM.

The biggest thing I've seen online...people miss over 90% of the time with 50 cals. They aren't nearly as accurate as they seem based on my experience flying the jug and pony. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe you are correct in this. After put my gunsight to magnified view I realized that I was missing 90% of the time (like you said.) If you are dead on target (like the tracks Korolov showed us) they are quite effective. I have begun using magnified view whenever I shoot now (except at extremely close range) and it works! I think part of problem with the whole shooting thing is that your monitor screen is just too fricking small to aim well and track your tracers.

Atomic_Marten
12-09-2004, 01:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The only real comparison is to test the P-39 Q-10, Yak, Ki-84 and the 109G6 (all with 2 .50's in the nose) and shoot stuff. They all have about equal power. The Japanese stuff seams a little weaker, but the German stuff seams a little bit more powerfull, but just a little. You truly cant compair 6-8 HMG's with anything else because nothing non-american can even come close to that many MG's. Maybe a Mig with gunpods, buts thats still just 4.

So fly the QMB with the aircraft listed and shoot targets up. Get a feel for all the guns and come back. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If your words are adressed to my account, than thanks for the tip.

The original question of poster was "are you think that 0.50s are weaker now in 3.02 then before in past versions =>2.04.."
I still stand by my point of view, in spite the fact that I did not use them much in version 3.02. But in that time that I spend using 'em, they did good job. If they are weaker or not, I simply can't tell, and I doubt that I will be in position of doing so, because I don't intend to back to 2.04.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

FatBoyHK
12-09-2004, 01:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
The cannons vs banks of mgs is almost a never ending debate but you have to ask yourself why the USAF moved away from mgs after the war if they were so effective. And yep, there are more factors such as the weight of weaponry having less of an impact but why not just carry a lot more mgs?

Cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

there are so many many factors....
1) technolgy advance make cannon shoot as fast as a MG in WWII, and with similar muzzle velocity

2) Plane because bigger, larger, faster, but less manervable after the war, because of the jet engine. This make even a "light" figher in this age a better target for cannon

etcetc, don't wanna hijack this thread, let's stop here.

Korolov
12-09-2004, 02:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF-29_Sandman:
mebby its just in the 38's...the jug's are especially lethal. 1 burst is enough to severely cripple almost anything short of a tank <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Keep in mind that the P-47, P-51, etc. have more guns and a larger target coverage than the P-38 does. In the P-47 and P-51, you might be hitting the left wing and the right side of the fuselage; in the P-38, you're only hitting one spot. This is why it's got a cannon - a few solid hits from all the .50s plus the cannon is plenty sufficient to nail a bandit quickly.

LeadSpitter_
12-09-2004, 02:20 PM
yup hayateace been like that since fb hit shelves, same went for sturmovik with the lendlease p39 and russian birds vs german

quick a mod better lock this thread its talking about improving american aircaft.

carguy_
12-09-2004, 02:28 PM
And you Mustang lovers have the nerve to brag about fifties while MK108 is still undermodelled.

GR142-Pipper
12-09-2004, 04:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mynameisroland:
US aircraft kept using .50cal as the main armament for theri fighters/bombers for the same reason that they persisted in using the Sherman in all its various forms.

Cheaper, easier logistics, familiar, adequate if used in enough numbers - 8 x .50 cal vs 4 x 20mm read 5 x Sherman tanks vs 1 Panther.

Sounds anti American? its not meant to. I just cant stand posts that state .50 cals are porked and that they were much more effective otherwise the~US wouldnt have persisted with them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The reason that the 50s were used is that they were VERY EFFECTIVE, first and foremost. The other reasons you have correctly cited were certainly valid but are supporting reasons. The 50s continued in use into the jet age with the F-86 and other aircraft. The U.S. 50s as currently modeled are nothing less than weak.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>That is not the case. Cannons were more effective. The RAF had the oppertunity to go all .50 cal and chose to have mixed .50 and cannon then all cannon. It was because Cannons were more effective. EVERY other nation thought so as well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> True, and eventually we too standardized on the 4 x 20mm armament. However, it does not change the fact that 6 x 50s (or 8 in the case of the P-47) would absolutely tear aircraft to pieces. I agree with those who think that the 50s simply don't have the hitting power they should. Just my take.

GR142-Pipper

GR142_Astro
12-09-2004, 05:11 PM
Yep, something is certainly wrong with the online code for the .50s.

They should still have enough time to fix it before the official patch though.

WUAF_Badsight
12-09-2004, 10:17 PM
unlike yourself it seems , most people actually fly most planes

try it

i mean , when was the last time you flew a Bf109 for an extended period ? huh ?

if you only fly one type of plane most of the time , your going to become Biased . . . oh wait , you already are

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
OH BROTHER.

Someone posts that the .50s aren't getting the job done online and we get flooded with lufties who all of a sudden decide to fly allied one time . . .. . . . . . . . . .

Nobody is going to believe your false claims and your agenda is completely transparent. Give it up. More and more allied players are now realising the online .50s are doing nothing, . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Nice try lufts, but the online .50s are porked. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
BTW , the M2 .50 cal can still deal devestating hit power , your claim is waffeling BS

as in lies

"nothing" . .. . pffft , why dont you show up in this thread with your real call sign so we know exactly which Yank-Whiner you are from online huh ?

like i didnt expect this kind of thing to happen once we got the PTO theater in the Maddox Sim line-up

Aaron_GT
12-10-2004, 04:23 AM
" The reason that the 50s were used is that they were VERY EFFECTIVE, first and foremost."

It depends in relation to what and at what point in the war. In 1940 when armour on fighters was minimal they were very effective. By 1943 they were adequate. The USAAF and USN both looked at replacing them during WW2.

A .50 armed plane can disable a fighter enough that it is no longer a threat, even if this just means reducing its performance such that it cannot attack your formation. This is fine for escort missions which was the primary role for USAAF fighters in the ETO and MTO. In this instance a long firing time so you can somewhat disable a large number of fighters is most important. If you look at the weight of installation of 8 .50s in a P47 and maximum ammo and the weight of 4 20mm cannon plus ammo you could have pretty much the same firing time for each installation. However if you analyse the space in the wings (essentially the cross section of the ammo boxes) and note the way ammuntion has to be laid in them to be able to feed properly what you would actually end up with about 60% of the firing time (and a lighter plane). This probably didn't fit the ETO requirement.

For the USN defending beacheads or carriers it is much more important to put the enemy plane down in small pieces very quickly. A damaged enemy plane might sill be a potential threat. So here a smaller clip size but more firepower is more of a priority, which may be part of why the USN were more interested in cannon. The USN essentially swapped to a 4 20mm cannon armament by the end of WW2. Cannon adoption by the USN was slower than it might have been due to jamming problems with the US version of the Hispano not fixed until the M3 version.

For defensive armament both USN and USAAF stayed mostly with .50s except with the addition of 20mm cannon in B29s. With larger numbers of guns your chances of landing at least one hit are pretty much the same even if you double the number of guns, but there is a big leap from 1 to 2 guns and if B17s had been armed with 20mm cannon the turrets would most likely be limited to single 20mm mounts. The LW thought it wasn't unreasonable to have some single 20mm mounts, although they seemed to be keen on dual 20mm remote turrets where possible. An exception is the tail of the He177 which is a single 20mm mount, but planes attacking from dead six are maneouvering more slowly and a single 20mm has a reasonable chance of hitting.

Aaron_GT
12-10-2004, 04:29 AM
"Yep, something is certainly wrong with the online code for the .50s."

AFAIK online only a subset of the bullets fired are tracked to reduce the amount of data flow and then the bullets that do connect deal out more damage. Offline one of the big parts of the effectiveness of a .50 is the number of bullets flying around which means a reasonable chance of hitting something critical, even if you do a smaller amount of damage per hit. Online your chances of hitting something critical by random chance will be reduced. If you do hit it, it will be damaged much more than it would offline.

With 20mm cannon, which fire at a slower rate, the sampling in terms of offlinehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gifnline bullets fired may be closer to 1:1 so you wouldn't see so much change in the behaviour between online and offline.

Basically the sampling is a requirement to make bullet tracking online a tractable problem.

Plus packet loss can be an issue, and that may affect some people more than others and vary from day to day.

I've blown aircraft up or sawn wings off with .50s online. I even blew a 109 up with a 1/2 second burst from a Lagg 3 once. If you don't have packet loss and hit something critical the effects can be spectacular but it is (to coin a phrase) more hit-and-miss online

Shadow1706
12-10-2004, 04:32 AM
Interesting piece of information about .50 cals:

"When shooting from dead 6 o'clock of these planes, the pilot armour has often absorbed even the 12.7 mm bullets. (For example W.O. Alho shot his guns empty at a Chaika's pilot armour over the Seiskari Island without any effect. The fuselage skin behind the armour was ripped apart, but the plane didn't go down.)"

From the captain Hans Wind's lectures.
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-CaptainWindsAirCombatTacticsLecture.html

Diablo310th
12-10-2004, 08:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cyrano:
Offline and online will get you two dramatically different results with the .50's. Everyone who regularly flies "Red" online is coming to the same conclusion. Perhaps as some have mentioned it's a global DM thing with the beta patch that is most noticeable with the .50's or perhaps there was a decision to make them weaker. In any case they are. Does that mean they are useless? Absolutely not, but there are times as Badsight has reported that things just don't add up. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree..not a whine just my feelings about it. I still do ok but something is different. From what I have heard you really have to be in convergence now to do serious damage.

Platypus_1.JaVA
12-10-2004, 10:25 AM
Yo http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif