PDA

View Full Version : .50 Cals in the game - the conspiracy that wasn't



guderian_ente
01-26-2006, 03:26 AM
I see many people on the forums complaining about the lack of effectiveness of the .50 Cals in the game. I think there are several factors that help explain this, and none of them involve a conspiracy.

The first is range. The monitor tends to make objects appear closer than they are, and understates the difference between target size 300, 200 and 100 metres (for a comparison, look at the size of cars at those ranges when you're driving down the highway). Combat ranges in world war two were short, often under 100 metres. In the game many people shoot from 300 meters or more.

Firing from closer range achieves two things: it gives the bullets more energy and it concentrates the bullet stream, which makes the chances much greater that you will critically damage an area (e.g. saw off a wing). I assume Il2 uses a simplified model where the aircraft is divided into areas that each have a "hit point" value (in simplified terms). From longer range you tend to "spray" the entire target without causing enough hits in one area. But get in close, and "close" means under 150 metres, and you will chew them up with the .50 Cals.

Mostly it's a matter of discipline. We all want to fire when we finally get the enemy plane in our sights, but you have to teach yourself to wait, then wait some more, and then€¦ Like the saying goes: "When you think you are too close, get closer".

The second big factor is damage model. I think Il2 is the best flight sim ever created, but that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement of course. I€m fairly sure the game uses a simplified damage model that doesn't fully simulate all the internal components of the aircraft. Aircraft are filled with highly flammable and explosive stuff like fuel, hydraulic fuel, ammunition and compressed oxygen. One bullet in the right place means KABOOM, and with lots of .50 Cal bullets flying the chances of getting that lucky hit goes up of course.

This is speculative, but I get a feeling that the game's limited modelling of internal structures may penalize the .50 Cals a bit. Why? A single .50 Cal bullet has enough energy to go though the aircraft but not enough to bring it down, unless of course it hits something vulnerable. But this is an indirect consequence of a perfectly understandable design limitation, not a conspiracy. (And for BoB Oleg has promised insanely detailed internal modelling, so don't worry. There will be more chances to hit those oxygen bottles in future.)

The third factor is flying and AI. In the game both humans and the AI tend to engage in turning fights at high G. If you look at gun camera films you'll see that it was very rare for the target to maneuver to this extent.

What this means is that in the game the target is only in the sight for a brief time. Some may claim that this gives the .50 Cals an advantage, since they put out more lead in less time. But I have a feeling it may be the opposite, since the target won't spend enough time in the sight for the .50 Cals to achieve enough hits in one area (see above about the importance of concentrating the bullet stream). For proof of this, look at the popularity of the big gun fighters (tankbuster Yaks etc) online. They only need one hit, which gives them an advantage if the target is turning.

Anyway, those are my reflections on the ".50 Cal conspiracy". Comments?

Dolemite-
01-26-2006, 03:46 AM
Your insane.

guderian_ente
01-26-2006, 04:06 AM
Thank you for that constructive piece of criticism. Anyone else? :)

Brain32
01-26-2006, 04:32 AM
You are trying to start a constructive, unbiased and reasonable discussion in this forum - bad idea.
Saracasm ON
Where did you go wrong:
1. You didn't say that .50 is completely porked and unusable
2. Nowhere in your thread did you mention that P51 won the war by completely outclassing any opposing forces fighter.
These two mistakes are unforgivable.
Sarcasm OFF
EDIT: Actually I pretty much agree with everything you said http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

joeap
01-26-2006, 04:57 AM
Make that two who think you're (not your) <STRIKE>insane</STRIKE> a genius.

No seriously agree with Brain very well thought out post. Have to wonder about ranges and siz of planes in the game vs. reality though, probably a monitor limitation. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

jds1978
01-26-2006, 05:42 AM
If they de-synch the tracers i'll be perfectly happy....

Jetbuff
01-26-2006, 06:34 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
You are trying to start a constructive, unbiased and reasonable discussion in this forum - bad idea.
I'm afraid Brain's right. It is a requirement for a thread to last longer than 3 pages that it have at least one of the following words/phrases:
Uber, porked, conspiracy, bias, BS, nerfed, super, cr@ppy modeling, so I was online, I am an online ace, KGB, Nazi, Commie, Capitalist pigs, UFO, 0.50+Tiger. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

georgeo76
01-26-2006, 06:46 AM
Your right about people who want to shoot from too great a distance. At < 150m, 4x .50 is enough to do the job in a 1sec burst to even the toughest AC regardless of tracers.

I'll add another observation. Many or most, I find, are unsatisfied until they see an aircraft disintegrate or explode. If this doesn't happen in the air, they continue to fire until they see it happen on the ground. While this is satisfying, it's rarely necessary. Compared to the mk108 or even multiple 20mms, the .50 appear pretty anemic in this regard, while still being just as effective.

Ratsack
01-26-2006, 06:57 AM
Guderian: I agree with most of that. Good post.

Dolemite: it's you're (the contraction of you are), not your. Go and stand in the corner.

georgeo76: love your sig. and pic. It's a terrific movie.

Ratsack

BSS_CUDA
01-26-2006, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
You are trying to start a constructive, unbiased and reasonable discussion in this forum - bad idea.
I'm afraid Brain's right. It is a requirement for a thread to last longer than 3 pages that it have at least one of the following words/phrases:
Uber, porked, conspiracy, bias, BS, nerfed, super, cr@ppy modeling, so I was online, I am an online ace, KGB, Nazi, Commie, Capitalist pigs, UFO, 0.50+Tiger. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>thats exaclt why I dont bother to post in any meaningful threads on UBI anymore. if I wish to discuss something then I goto the CWOS forum. too many Spammers, flammers and Kiddies on UBI

ECV56_Rolf
01-29-2006, 09:10 AM
The way .50s are modelled distance is not an issue. Convergence may be, but is not that bad either.

The big point is damage modell, and how strong some surfaces are made in every plane. Right now it seems very difficult to tear off controller surfaces of many planes. They do drop off, but with considerable damage. Even while suffering heavy canon fire they are quite strong.

Other factors are weapon positioning, wing rooted wapons are harder to aim. The 190 don't have the 20mm on the nose, but they are almost there, so no deflection trouble. But every US fighter have wing rooted weapons with the sole exception of the P38... and well the YP80 in the game... The P38 also benefits of being a very stable gun platform which enables it to pin point fire even from very large distances and collect good results. I will even trade the 20mm in the nose for 2 more .50s in dogfight. The 20mm is fine for straffing harder targets.

It is very difficult to judge how often the planes were blowed up, broken, flamed, or just rendered useless by gun fire.

So people impressions are that the 4 or so guncams that shows planes blowing up was the common issue on air dogfight. A very bad handling plane will be enough to bail out.

To my taste the .50s are ok except for the sync.

Just for fun I see waht happened to P51s and other allied planes when fired upon with .50s... almost the same results than firing with 20mm canons...

WWTharn
01-29-2006, 07:06 PM
Havent been here in awhile- first post I read and I like it!
this is a very reasonable argument and I agree.

Everyone Save up for those 27inch hdtv/monitors -that way we can pan out on the crosshair and still be able to follow/track the target when we get inside 150 metres.

I envy you bastages who have the larger screens-the game must be awesome to play on one of those.

horseback
01-29-2006, 07:23 PM
The problem is that if your convergence is set for 200m with wing mounted guns, as long as your pipper is centered on target (from a dead six), at least half your rounds should be hitting the target at ranges between 100 and 300m, and even more, if there's a slight angle to your shot and you lead properly.

This doesn't happen. You either get the big hit at or very near convergence, or you get a stream of nibbled off bits (someone once referred to these as "broken Oreos") with limited effect.

Move on to another target and someone (even your ai wingmen offline) will finish him off with a short burst and take the cred for the kill.

That's the very definition of bogus.

cheers

horseback

Copperhead310th
01-29-2006, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jetbuff:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
You are trying to start a constructive, unbiased and reasonable discussion in this forum - bad idea.
I'm afraid Brain's right. It is a requirement for a thread to last longer than 3 pages that it have at least one of the following words/phrases:
Uber, porked, conspiracy, bias, BS, nerfed, super, cr@ppy modeling, so I was online, I am an online ace, KGB, Nazi, Commie, Capitalist pigs, UFO, 0.50+Tiger. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>thats exaclt why I dont bother to post in any meaningful threads on UBI anymore. if I wish to discuss something then I goto the CWOS forum. too many Spammers, flammers and Kiddies on UBI </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gifLMFAO OMFG http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gifand you goto CWOS for adult inteligent conversation? lol yeah.
buch of real inteligent people over there.
Il-2's offical brain trust. CWOS.
lol what a f*cking riot.
Come on Cuda i thought better of you than that ol buddy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Bearcat99
01-29-2006, 09:50 PM
If you hit with the 50s at convergence a 1 second burst in the right spot can set a 109 on fire. Thats on a 4, 6 or 8 gun plane.

fordfan25
01-29-2006, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by guderian_ente:
Thank you for that constructive piece of criticism. Anyone else? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

yes your nutz

guderian_ente
02-01-2006, 11:13 AM
So people impressions are that the 4 or so guncams that shows planes blowing up was the common issue on air dogfight. A very bad handling plane will be enough to bail out.

Exactly. The guncam videos we see on the net are highlight reels, not representative samples.



Everyone Save up for those 27-inch hdtv monitors - that way we can pan out on the crosshair and still be able to track the target when we get inside 150 metres.


Bigger monitors will help, but I can still follow the target at under 150 metres on my 21-inch CRT using the zoomed out view.

Of course the lack of speed and depth perception makes the collision risk even higher than it was in real life, but it can be done.

Jetbuff
02-01-2006, 11:45 AM
BTW, I have actually tried to miss planes due to the 'sync' issue and have consistently failed. Even high speed passes at 90? deflection aiming at planes' wings yielded no results. Could someone please send me a track showing the adverse effect of sync'd 0.50's? Thanks...