PDA

View Full Version : Gunners or Snipers



GazzaMataz
10-13-2004, 02:53 AM
Why does it always seem that rear, side, dorsal and ventral gunners are all trained snipers. I have flown Hurricanes against He-111s and Bf109s against Il-2s and Pe-2s and have to be very careful not to get hit - at all.

Now I have gone back to my Il-2 game, I find that no matter how hard I try against Il-2s and especially Pe-2s that I always get hit in the engine and develop an oil leak then the engine will eventually die.

With the Il-2s I find I can take them out but coming up under them, out of the gunner and pilots view, but how do you deal with a Pe-2? I do BnZ on these buggers and I see bits flying off I'm travelling at 500+kmph and BHAM!!! I get it in the engine or radiator.

To put this to the test I flew as a gunner on both a He-111 and a Il-2 against similar fighters. Do you think I could hit them? NO.

So, are these gunners over modelled or am I doing something fundamentally wrong, its starting to get a bit wearing...

Gantoo
10-13-2004, 03:23 AM
I find that to be safe when attacking Pe-2's is to make a high speed (550+) deflection shot (>20 degrees). I try and aim for a wing strut.

I attack Il-2s like GazzaMataz, from underneath.

When I do get hit, 85% of the time it is becuase I am being lazy and making an improper attack.

Jasko76
10-13-2004, 04:24 AM
Pe-2s are vulnerable to flank attacks. Be fast and cool, aim sharp. Make as many passes as it takes and be patient.

On the other side, sometimes I can take down four B-17s by attacking them from behind. No BnZ or TnB, just a leasurely approach from the dead stern, picking them off one by one. Luck?

clint-ruin
10-13-2004, 05:06 AM
While I have the Ask Oleg thing open:

(Q): is the AI gunners gonna get changed at all with FB? The stock campaign is almost impossible to kill IL2s unless you come from 12oclock.
(A): I'm sorry to say but accurassy in IL-2 of gunners is worse than in real life.
Link: 10/17/02 10:19AM

(Q): And i'm wondering why the hell the americans needed fighter cover of their B-17 , since they had 11-15 machine guns. If some they you model that plane, and you keep the gunners accuracy, it would be impossible to approach a formation of these bombers
(A): I don't think so.
There is also human factor in real life. Just imagine your self that you fly in that seat and see on six FW-190 firing at you. I think you simply will jum down from a turret position. But we don't model this. Dispersion of AI turrets is 50% higher than it was. Be sure.
We did large research aroun it. and it was decreased just becasue users ask. Don't hang on one line. This is from notices for pilots attacking simgle bombers. Attack in one pass - this is from pilot notices for attacking the formation. So I'm very surprised that people do not make own reserach and just think that if they can't shot down bomber aircraft with many MGs that means that it is incorrect. Try to calculate how many German pilots were shot down when they tried to attack big bombers....
The take in account that only Two Pe-8 were shot down by German fighters (at night time! As said survived gunner only becasue he didn't saw them in dark!) for the all time they was operated from 1941 to 1944. What is incorrect a bit in Il-2 it is that AI gunners continue to shot at high G. That probably will be addressed, but not sure that soon. We have enough other work that sould be done at first.
10/17/02 04:41PM

...

(Q): I designed a mission where Ju88s had attacked an airfield and on the return flight a couple of LaGGs caught up to them. (...) The Ju88s did not even try to evade and the rear gunners couldn't hit the ocean. Did I set something up wrong?
(A): You simply probably don't know that German level bombers in a mass of them had much more worse defence veapon and especially angles of view for gunners and their MGs than Russian and Allies.
I dount count such as He-177 and others. I speak about mass-produced German bombers that had not normal rotating turrets.
Link: 10/17/02 06:10PM

...

(Q): Will the deadly shooting accuracy of tanks and Stuka gunners be "toned" down a bit in FB?
(A): Tanks - yes.
Stuka? Probably not. Its too easy to shot down...
Link: 12/03/02 12:54PM


...

(Q): The back gunners on Stuka are snipers, maybe its all in my head but they are alot better then the IL-2 back gunner.
Maybe when the stuka is added and flyable you can make the back gunner equal to that of the IL-2's.
(A): Try to say it on German forum and we'll see their reaction
Link: 08/13/02 09:00AM


It's also worth mentioning that since this was written in 2002, there has been at least one decrease in bomber turret rotation speed, and with 2.04 I think there was a minor change to make Rookie and Average skill gunners much worse at their job. If you set them to Ace [or if DGEN sets them to ace] - they are actually pretty good shots, and they -will- kill you if you hang in the air and present a nice fat stationary target.

500kmh approaches from behind, to a Pe-2, which can do up to 550 or so KMH at alt, is not going to be enough. Go where the gunners can't hit you, never stop rolling and changing direction, and hope you don't get hit. Real life pilots absolutely loathed rear gunners and flak too. If they are annoying you it is probably more a reflection of FBs realism than anything else :>

WUAF_Badsight
10-13-2004, 05:24 AM
Gunners used to be Snipers . . . . . very much so

they are now ultra - stupid

just watch the B-17 turrets try to track you (FB v2.04)

personally for me , i didnt like them as snipers but this is no better

GazzaMataz
10-13-2004, 05:38 AM
clint-ruin
Thanks for that insightful post, if it is accurately modelled then I feel sorry for all those poor sods that were getting battered by gunners. Mind you if they were that good how come the US bombers needed escorts?

Jasko
I hope you get to be with your missus real soon m8 and thanks for the tip!

I shall persevere in wiggling and woggling whilst trying to take out bombers.

clint-ruin
10-13-2004, 05:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GazzaMataz:
_clint-ruin_
Thanks for that insightful post, if it is accurately modelled then I feel sorry for all those poor sods that were getting battered by gunners. Mind you if they were that good how come the US bombers needed escorts? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are a few things that aren't modelled in the game that would have had an effect in reality.

For larger bombers you are looking at something like a 3-4am start for the crews followed by about a dozen hours of horrid, pukey flight conditons in the freezing cold.

Gunners don't get paniced by 30mm and 88mm shells going off around them.

The one thing I really think comes across as a major difference is the time that these attacks would take. Very often more than enough time for a lot of the group to have positions or whole sections of the plane uncovered, either through death, injury, lack of ammo, mechanical problems, or whatever. If your targetted B-17 formation spends a couple of hours being shot at by heavy flak before you get to it, I think you will find that your job gets a lot easier in the game. Since we can't pre-damage planes [well, you can, but it's very time consuming to do it right] your options are basically to start the formation at the extreme edge of the map, make it fly through hell and accelerate time.

But I would agree with Oleg that the problem is not something directly to do with dispersion, tracking speed, or accuracy from the gunners.

TgD Thunderbolt56
10-13-2004, 06:33 AM
I find that if I use proper tactics when engaging anything with a rear gunner (IL2, Stuka, He111, Pe2 etc,...) I can usually get the kill and survive. If I "camp" on their 6, I can expect to die or at least get my ride crippled.

I focus on high-deflection, high-speed passes and try very hard to focus all of my fire on one particular spot. Whichever area I hit the hardest early is the area I will continue to pound.

I curse the gunners plenty, but ultimately I find my success more relative to my tactics.

TB

VW-IceFire
10-13-2004, 07:57 AM
You die or you get hit by the gunners if you approach them the wrong way. Frankly, I do better with myself as gunner than if the AI is doing it. I've nailed quite a few guys who fly straight up on my six and I let them have it with my properly aimed turret fire.

Keep in mind that if you attack lone wolf then you are facing alot of firepower. If you go into a B-17 formation with 14 fighters behind you...then its a different story.

sunflower1
10-13-2004, 08:00 AM
Very interesting- as Oleg has probably done as much work as anyone on modelling bomber defense.

Perhaps what's going on with those complaining users is that they didn't want to model attrition warfare in their spare time!

What a horrible, horrible job it must have been, on either side.

The fact that Germany and Japan both ran out of trained pilots says quite a bit, doesn't it?

clint-ruin
10-13-2004, 09:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sunflower1:
Very interesting- as Oleg has probably done as much work as anyone on modelling bomber defense.

Perhaps what's going on with those complaining users is that they didn't want to model attrition warfare in their spare time!

What a horrible, horrible job it must have been, on either side.

The fact that Germany and Japan both ran out of trained pilots says quite a bit, doesn't it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's an issue that has come up a lot of times since Il2 1.0.

There have been people arguing both that bombers are too tough [DM and difficulty getting past gunners], and others that say attrition is too high - either for interceptors or bombers or both.

I think if you extrapolate what people are capable of doing to bomber formations in the game, and adjust the casulaties to factor in that the real deal would have had say, 10x more aircraft than most peoples PCs would support, the bomber attrition numbers would make the worst real raids casualties look like a sunday picnic.

I think that as hard as people find it, taking on real bomber formations would have been a lot more difficult in reality. There are a number of things that aren't taken into account in your typical FB mission, or in the FB physics system [mainly - flying a tiny fighter through the wash of several hundred 4 engine aircraft is a piece of cake in FB] that made the interceptors job a lot harder as well.

Let's not forget that the kinds of blazing, fly through the formation attacks that people are so fond of doing in FB were very likely to result in having about 1/2rd of the interceptor squad dead or damaged by the time it exited the box. Flying head on was difficult to set up, presented split second firing opportunities and involved playing chicken with dozens of massive aircraft. This was regarded as the easiest way to take the bombers on.

The primary killer of bombers was flak, not the interceptor aircraft. The bombers that did get taken down were very often the ones that could no longer keep up with the formation and had to seperate out, which would then be pounced on by up to a dozen aircraft and worn down over a period of time.

I think a lot of people go out of their way to make bomber interception a pain in the bum for themselves. It's not supposed to be easy, it's supposed to be something that even the best pilots fouled their trousers doing. If you can get even 10 4 engine bombers down during hundreds of sorties, you have a better strike rate at this than all but the absolute top 1% of interceptor pilots.

Just my reading of the history of the raids as it compares to FB, I am very well aware that a lot of people don't see it this way and have posted a great deal to that effect :>

GazzaMataz
10-13-2004, 10:05 AM
Er, I just like to add that I wasn't windging about the fact that I couldn't shoot bombers down just how realistic it was.

From all these great answers I now now that 'IT AINT EASY' and is realistic...

BTW, I have found a way to get those **** Pe-2shttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

BfHeFwMe
10-13-2004, 10:17 AM
Pilots who can shoot deflection have always been the exception and never the rule. Gun cam footage backs it up, it's rare to find gun film with high angle deflection shots. Even the training films concentrated on low aspect shooting, you either have the ability or you don't. Most simply will never have the ability, some naturally have it and a few can pick it up with practice.

The game reflects this well, the gunnery model is pretty good, and there's not many who can consistantly attack and hit with high deflections in it. To say it was the standard for attack simply isn't true.

Slick750
10-13-2004, 10:19 AM
It's best to be the gunner yourself when a guy is on your six, aim for the canopy. The BF-110 is my favorite, because it's fast,(faster then a stuka) the ennemy often comes at you slow, dead on your six...right in front of a gunner with a great view. I wouldnt want AI gunners toned down, then they'd be useless.

sunflower1
10-13-2004, 10:35 AM
If I had to work up a whine, it would be that my gunner in the IL-2 doesn't often wound the fighters chasing us, or at least that's my impression, compared to how often I get tagged when chasing a/c with gunners. After observing the AI routines, I have a hard time believing its because the pursuers are using fantastic tactics.
Is my impression a fact?

Chuck_Older
10-13-2004, 10:38 AM
"The gunner's accuracy in Il-2 is worse than real life"


This is the first time I have gainsaid anything Oleg has posted, but I must be the voice of negativity here, with an explanation of course.


Firstly, not all gunners were of equal skill. This is obvious. But we don't have an option to select gunner skill (or experience, if you prefer) in FB. So in this regard, the gunner's accuracy must be better than in real life in some instances, and worse in others.

But in FB, we have gunners who routinely can hit you with the first shot, even in the current version. So to me, that means there simply are no 'poor' gunners in any aircraft in FB. We have an 'average' or whatever 'average' accuracy is.

Now, I don't think that being able to hit a fighter-sized target at 300m from the tail gun position is actually that hard if the traget stays still or relatively still. BUT- the very first shots should not be as accurate as the shots after the gunner corrects his aim in many cases, and in FB, they are. This is exacerbated a bit by the slow turret response in some aircraft, and the 'dumb' behavior of the gunners. But the fact of the matter is that their first shot is as accurate as their last, and logically this shouldn't be so.

If the very first short burst of fire from these 'worse than real life' gunners missed by 20m, you would know you were being shot at and you would take evasive action. In this regard, doing so would probably make the gunners in FB useless, because they'd constantly have to correct their aim and they do, as mentioned, dumb things sometimes. So that means in game mechanics, to my thinking, you have to make up for that or the gunners couldn't hit ANYthing.

Next, the gunner in FB have no fear of death or even the 'fear' of losing a game. They are robots. So in this regard, they must be better than real life gunners. No disrespect to Oleg and I am sure that from his standpoint that the gunners in FB are not too good. But the fact of the matter is, they have no reason to flinch, jink, hesitate or anything like that. So they are also extremely consistent. Also the FM of AI planes is simplified and I suspect this means that each and every aircraft in FB with a gunner is a better gun platform than in real life.

When I 'fly' in an He-111 as a gunner for yuks, I cannot hit a flippin thing, after much practice, with enough lead to actually shoot it down.

How many players who fly and man bombers in FB can shoot down an attacking plane with a one sceond burst? I am curious indeed on that point.

Lastly, if you play FB a lot, you will discover gunners' weak points and strong points and exploit them. That doesn't mean that the gunners aren't good enough, it means that neccessary limitations in game mechanics enabled you to learn what the situations are in which the gunners can't shoot well.

Those are my observations on the subject

clint-ruin
10-13-2004, 10:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Firstly, not all gunners were of equal skill. This is obvious. But we don't have an option to select gunner skill (or experience, if you prefer) in FB. So in this regard, the gunner's accuracy must be better than in real life in some instances, and worse in others.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree it would be good to see gunners fire more often, and it would also make them run out of ammo faster too. The way it works is that they follow the same firing/tracking solution on a target whether they're shooting or not. So when they finally decide they've got a good enough solution to take the shot - that's usually your first warning that hey, that rear gunner can hit you in the eye from here.

It is very difficult to dodge a .50 cal bullet. That's why it's so important in FB to just keep moving - gunners are almost always following you, or following someone, they're just not shooting off rounds all the time.

The AI skill setting sets the gunner skill, bomb aiming skil, and flying skill for a bomber. As of 2.04 I believe DGEN also has a seperate switch to set the average or absolute bomber skill range seperately from the fighter skill level.

I would imagine that bomber gunners with the kinds of skills the Veteran or Ace level gunners have in the game would be very few and far between. You can fly against them if you want. The only thing is that these settings don't seem to kick in online, Future-, who has probably some of the most experience of anyone flying bombers online, says that the skill level seems to be entirely random each spawn. I've never heard anything from Oleg on the subject of online AI gunner skill though, I have no idea which side their aiming is controlled by for instance.

horseback
10-13-2004, 01:47 PM
My personal impression from this game and Il-2 Sturmovik before it is that the AI gunners in general are inexcusably accurate. If I had a dollar for every time my aircraft was disabled by a tunnel gunner (never mind the guys in the open positions) from an extreme angle 600m away, I could buy a new supercomputer with a 25" monitor, 7.1 digital speakers, and the latest and greatest video and audio cards.

Hitting an approaching fighter plane 200m away with a flexible gun mount from a moving, maneuvering aircraft was extremely difficult; it's friggin' impossible from 600m!

To consistantly hit a fighter in the engine from an open position like the rear gunner's in an Il-2 just defies the historical record, and as Chuck pointed out, there is little appreciable difference between gunners on 'ace' planes vs 'rookie' planes, and you can't reset the gunners' skill levels individually. A prone gun or teeny weeny window mounted gun position are just as accurate as the open or turret mounts, and if multiple possitions are supposed to be manned by a single gunner, he'll change gun positions in microseconds and bag you every time. 7.7mm peashooters do as much damage as 12.7mm heavies, and the heavier guns are brought to bear as quickly as the peashooters.

It is by far the most unrealistic feature of the game for the offline campaign player. Multiseat aircraft were called 'Easy Meat' by single seat fighter pilots for good reason. The exact opposite is true in this (and, to be fair almost every other) flight sim. It should be fixed, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

cheers

horseback

Agamemnon22
10-13-2004, 03:15 PM
If you're taking bullets into the engine from the IL-2's rear gunner then you're doing a dead-six attack which is the worst possible situation to be in. Those aces who called them "Easy Meat" probably knew enough not to fly in the gunner's cone of fire http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I've given up trying to compare Il-2 gunners to real gunners, the behave entirely differently. The AI is able to calculate lead without firing any rounds. Compare how you shoot to how the AI shoots. You fire in the general direction and then correct your aim based on result. AI is able to calculate exact lead without firing a round. Whatever random error generator they use, every once in a while the error must be so low that the bullet flies basically exactly where it should. That's how you get one-round kills. I'm not sure what's to be done about it such that the AI doesn't spray wildly in any direction. Limitation of whatever AI implementation is used here I guess.

We'll see what, if anything, has changed for PF.

VW-IceFire
10-13-2004, 03:33 PM
Agamemnon22, I know what you mean...but I have to say that I can calculate lead in my head without firing a single shot. It takes a bit of practice and I definately am not always going to be on with the first shot but I can be VERY close.

So the AI isn't THAT different. If you have a good human gunner and a good AI gunner...they aren't all that different. Its just that if they get us alot...then we assume the AI is overdone. If a human gets us alot...we know he's good http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Chuck_Older
10-13-2004, 05:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Agamemnon22:
If you're taking bullets into the engine from the IL-2's rear gunner then you're doing a dead-six attack which is the worst possible situation to be in. Those aces who called them "Easy Meat" probably knew enough not to fly in the gunner's cone of fire http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to disagree with this
The "you must be coming in from dead astern" or "don't attack from a bomber's six" replies are becoming cliche.

Everyone knows not to do that. Horesback has probably forgotten more about the air war in WWII than I know, and I know a fair amount, so i don't think for one second that horseback is coming in from 6 o'clock and hanging out.

I know I don't. And what he relates happens to me from time to time: I'll be flying 500m away from a bomber or something with a rear gun, and from 10 o'clock high from the port side, and WHAM! I get hit.

I can understand the arguments that say "learn to fly" or "learn to shoot" or "learn better tactics". But the problem is that the AI gunner is consistently accurate over long range, doesn't have an unstable gun platform, seems to know EXACTLY when the pilot will manuever and compensates for it in nanoseconds, sees through clouds, apparently sees through the aircraft (check out the side gun in an He-111. there's NO way you have more than a split second to aim and fire when an enemy passes at 400mph, but the AI can get a hit consistently), and also seems to have a 'radar' that tells him when the precise moment is when you are in the AI's range, and also alerts the AI gunner when I sneak up on him.

All of those things give the AI gunner a marked advantage against the human fighter pilot and not all of them give him an advantage in marksmanship- some just give unfair awareness.

I really must say that at BEST I would concede that because of AI limitations, the AI gunner must have a few unfair advantages or he would be a useless crewmember.

A similar complaint was madeabout Ghost Recon. the AI is an Olympic marksman, every time, with the rreaction time and quick draw of Clint Eastwood's Man with No Name (but he had three names, really, Blondie, Manco, and...Joe, I think). So, the trick was to make the AI a little bit worse of a shot, so that the bad guy 100m away who could see your shoelace under a bush wasn't able to whip his AK74 to his shoulder, aim, and put a slug between your eyes quicker than you could soil your virtual pants.

In FB, the plain fact is that the AI gunner does things that a human gunner in the same plane cannot do with consistent results. When I look through a gunner's station, my view is obscured by many things, and when the AI mans the same post, he apparently gets info about my plane that he should not get, including where I am relative to his position, even if he should not be able to see me.

I can only conclude that Oleg was taken a little out of context concerning AI gunner accuracy. the issue isn't simply one of the gunners being accurate, although I certainly still question whether or not the AI should be as consistently accurate as it is. rather, the problem also concerns information that the AI gunner should not have. I realise the AI must have limitations, but that doesn't solve the problem that arises when a gunner can see me through a cloud, his own aircraft wing, or when he gunner knows exactly how much the pilot will bank, when, and for how long. It's more complex than simple marksmanship.

horseback
10-13-2004, 05:26 PM
I'm not talking about attacking from a dead six: I've been 'killed' from 600m away while at the enemy aircraft's low 4 or 8 o'clock more than once in FB/AEP campaigns. I've been hit while below the stabilizers relative to the gunner's position, I've been hit rolling, skidding, diving, at 600kph and at 230kph. I think once I got hit from the gunner's 3:01 o'clock.

I've plastered the gunner's position from every angle, and if he has the slightest breath of life in him, I'm as good as smoked. The tunnel guns on the Pe-3s are the worst, because in RL they were 'scare guns.' The gunner literally couldn't see half of the gun's cone of fire, and if you weren't directly at his low six, he could-not-hit-you-in-real-life! But in AEP, they'll hit you from ludicrous angles and ranges.

The pilots may be set as rookies, but I'm convinced that every AI gunner is a bullet-proof Annie Oakley at "that time of the month."

cheers

horseback

Chuck_Older
10-13-2004, 05:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
The pilots may be set as rookies, but I'm convinced that every AI gunner is a bullet-proof Annie Oakley at "that time of the month."

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When the Bills arrive in the mail? Boy, that time of the month really frosts my pumpkins

heywooood
10-13-2004, 05:40 PM
...my wife gets those frosty punkins once a month too...must be the water.

Hey - I always use a slicing high speed attack - either frontal or from above and it has increased my virtual survival rate significantly.....but those gunners have talent,be sure. You really don't want to hang in one spot for those guys if you can help it...just like in r/l.

I cant wait to see how 'special' all of those new AA gunners will be in PF http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

WTE_Galway
10-13-2004, 05:42 PM
i managed to knock a "expert" he-111 into a flat spin once and yet the gunner in the heinkel still got me as I extended away .. a great sniper shot from 600 metres even though his aircraft was in a voilent spin http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Chuck_Older
10-13-2004, 05:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
i managed to knock a "expert" he-111 into a flat spin once and yet the gunner in the heinkel still got me as I extended away .. a great sniper shot from 600 metres even though his aircraft was in a voilent spin http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Luftwaffe had superior training. Even the cooks could hit a duck on the wing with an potato peeler, while in the loo reading "The Fascist Gazette and Review" with a bag over his head.

VW-IceFire
10-13-2004, 06:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
i managed to knock a "expert" he-111 into a flat spin once and yet the gunner in the heinkel still got me as I extended away .. a great sniper shot from 600 metres even though his aircraft was in a voilent spin http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
They did mention that G forces were not modeled for gunners...that'd be a good one to help with that particular situation.

clint-ruin
10-13-2004, 06:39 PM
The post Oleg made was just before the release of FB if memory serves - we have G force limiting in there already, something like 3g or more is enough to shut them down. Personally I think it would have been better to try and work out a way to stop the bombers doing crazy aerobatics in the first place, but hey :>

There are a couple of things that people mention a lot that seriously never ever happen to me, and have never happened to me in any version of FB.

#1 - gunners continuing to fire from a damaged aircraft. Absolutely 100% of the time, any critical damage results in a bailout from the bomber, and they stop firing immediately. I have never ever seen this -not- happen, and I throw a couple of flights of medium/heavy bombers into just about every mission I make. I'm not saying this doesn't happen at all, just that I've never seen it after a very long time playing.

#2 - side gunners. Useless as tits on a bull even at Ace. Never been tagged by these in the B-17, let alone the He-111. These, as far as I've seen, are one of the few gunner positions that seem to always shoot in a way people would be more happy with - utter crud leading of a target and they seem to fire about 10x the number of rounds they would ever need. And keep firing even after the target is long gone. Same story as above - not saying noone could ever possibly be tagged by these guys, just that I don't think I've ever been, and I think they're easily the worst shots going of any fixed gun in the game.

The-Good-Guy
10-13-2004, 07:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Most simply will never have the ability, some naturally have it and a few can pick it up with practice.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

{That was regarding deflection shooting}

It's very true that one can learn deflection shooting with some solid practice.

A few months ago I focused on deflection shooting for several weeks, even using RAF and other training manuals. It was both an interesting process and a very successful one.

I found it a bit like the experience of scuba-diving for the first time. It's unnatural to breath underwater and it takes a bit of faith to do it at first.

Deflection shooting, especially at high angles, where you're putting the target aircraft outside the targeting ring takes a LOT of faith until it becomes second nature. After that, it's a buzz that keeps you hooked.

Just my tuppence worth.

clint-ruin
10-13-2004, 07:13 PM
Pilots who don't learn deflection shooting are more likely to end up as meat for pilots who do. There's a reason something like 99% of kills were scored by 1% of pilots.

FI-Aflak
10-13-2004, 10:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jasko76:
Pe-2s are vulnerable to flank attacks. Be fast and cool, aim sharp. Make as many passes as it takes and be patient.

On the other side, sometimes I can take down four B-17s by attacking them from behind. No BnZ or TnB, just a leasurely approach from the dead stern, picking them off one by one. Luck? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I once took 4 B-17's in one pass.

Me-262 A-1/U-4 baby.

They were flying the V formation, I made my attack so they were all lined up, held the trigger until they were all behind me.

Splash 4 baby!

Vipez-
10-15-2004, 01:06 PM
Hmm i find it bizarre that people think heinkel gunners think they snipe you from 600 meters.. i mean have you even tried to be the heinkel gunner ? the bullet of MG15 does not even seem to travel 600 meters in this game.. IMHO http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Chuck_Older
10-15-2004, 02:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vipez-:
Hmm i find it bizarre that people think heinkel gunners think they snipe you from 600 meters.. i mean have you even tried to be the heinkel gunner ? the bullet of MG15 does not even seem to travel 600 meters in this game.. IMHO http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So either you think we're lying, or we can't tell range.

Which one is it?

Obi_Kwiet
10-15-2004, 03:21 PM
I wonder if Oleg it talking about the gunner's accuracy or the gun's. If he's talking about the gunner's, it leads me to wonder if he has even fired a gun before. It requires a very steady aim to hit a still target at 200M with a rifle. With a machine gun in an aircraft, agisnt a fast moveing target, I would consider it a mirical if you hit anything beyond 300M let alone shoot it down.

Cragger
10-15-2004, 03:32 PM
MG-15 range in game is exactly 600m

Big difference Kwiet in a rifle being braced only by a human's stance and a machine gun mounted on a solid turrent fixture. Give me a Remington 700 a calibrated scope and a tripod mount on a shooting table and I can plink pop cans all day at well over 600m it may take 3 rounds per can on average but 33% isn't a miracle.

clint-ruin
10-15-2004, 04:16 PM
Again, going by what Future posted a long time ago on this [if I remember it right] - online, he was finding the B-17 gunners would score between about 5% and 12% or so for their total rounds/hit from the user stats summary. That certainly seems pretty unspectacular to me. I think the golden BB problem has a lot to do with people only starting to weave and dodge when the gunners open fire - by then it's just too late a lot of the time.

Chuck_Older
10-15-2004, 05:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cragger:
MG-15 range in game is exactly 600m

Big difference Kwiet in a rifle being braced only by a human's stance and a machine gun mounted on a solid turrent fixture. Give me a Remington 700 a calibrated scope and a tripod mount on a shooting table and I can plink pop cans all day at well over 600m it may take 3 rounds per can on average but 33% isn't a miracle. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See, this is not an argument about gunnery in FB.

The weapon mounts in FB don't matter one diddley dam. The gun platforms in FB for the AI gunner are stable. The AI gunner doesn't use the same model you do for aiming.

He flies in a plane with simplified flight modelling.

He has a rock steady gun mount.

He sees through clouds and the structure of his own plane.

When I say those things, that's why I say the gunners in FB are too accurate. They are not surprised. They do not have a bad day. They do not have their sight blocked by a cloud or a wing. they do not red out. They do not black out.

They have an easier time hitting a target than I do.

Is that a whine? No. I'm not here saying "Oweg, pwease fix this, sank ooo" and I never have. If anybody doubts that, the search function is right there...

But the consistent accuracy of AI gunners is too good in my opinion.

I have giving the reasons for my opinion, but I can't really say I have read any post by anyone who tells all of us that we're wrong, address any of these things I'm posting.

If you think that the gun mounts in an AI plane are stable, I have to say I think you're wrong.

If you think that the gun mounts in a real B-17 are stable, I think you're wrong, and here's why:

The B-17 is an aircraft. They don't ride like a fine luxury automobile. They thump. They thud. They're cold. The flexible gun mounts in a B-17 are very well afixed to the airplane. Trouble is, the airplane isn't steady as a rock, and that means, by default, that the gun platform is not stable.

If you set up your rifle on a table with a tripod, and you hit your target that is 600m away 33% of the time while I jump up and down on that table and rock it back and forth in a completely random pattern, I'll give you a hundred dollars.

My concern is the consistent accuracy of AI gunners who see through solid objects and have a situational awareness that Superman can only dream of.

mortoma
10-15-2004, 10:09 PM
Well the most realistic sim for being a gunner in a bomber is B-17 Flying Fortress II and I got so good I could shoot down fighters all day in that game. So it seems to me that in real life it was not so hard to hit fighters. I think IL2/FB/AEP/PF is probably a little forgiving in this regard, if anything. We should count ourselves lucky we can survive any anti-bomber missions.

Carnage2681
10-16-2004, 02:03 AM
I hope the Snipers in PF are not as good like in FB

Or the japanese paper planes will get a lot of problems

Chuck_Older
10-16-2004, 06:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
Well the most realistic sim for being a gunner in a bomber is B-17 Flying Fortress II and I got so good I could shoot down fighters all day in that game. So it seems to me that in real life it was not so hard to hit fighters. I think IL2/FB/AEP/PF is probably a little forgiving in this regard, if anything. We should count ourselves lucky we can survive any anti-bomber missions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um, using another PC simulation to judge real life performance of gunners in a real life plane and then contrasting that with another PC simulation...is that wise? That's like saying, "My Bf109 E4 in the original Il2 doesn't spin at X speed, so FB's FM is wrong"

All I will say about that is: by that logic, a B-17 formation would not have needed fighter escort.

As is well documented, the wisdom of simply having a combat box of B-17s take care of themselves against enemy fighters was flawed to say the least, and escort of bombers had to be undertaken.

Since in real life, un unescorted formation of bombers was in serious trouble if no escorts were around, I'm not sure I can seriously consider your point as evidence that the AI gunner in FB has advantages that makes him too consistently accurate.

In FB, we know that for example, in the B-17, turet turn rate is not very fast. But yet the B-17 is always used as a yardstick as far as I can see. "I can shoot down 4 B-17s in one pass" seems a common comment, but nobody has mentioned the apparent structural weakness of the B-17 in FB, or the slow gun slew rates. Odd.

Blottogg
10-16-2004, 09:13 PM
I'm fairly happy with the current state of gunners. I usually get punished when hanging out at their 6, and less so when maneuvering dynamically. They still pull off some pretty unrealistic sniper shots from time to time, but not nearly as often as with the original AEP.

That being said, there is still definitely room for improvement. There have been many times I've been saved not by my tactics or maneuvering, but the dispersion (with tracers providing a view akin to the Millenium Falcon going into hyperdrive.) The Ai's X-ray vision and ability to fire through their own aircraft's tail are also sources of vexation, and immersion killers. Their infallible identification is also a bummer, and a strong justification for icons. An interesting article in November's Aviation History relates how tail gunners in a B-17 formation call out "here come our escorts" just before being mauled by Fw-190 Sturmbocks. As a tactical note, the Sturmbocks made their runs from astern, though this would be a bad idea in anything less armored (though I still try.)

Another problem I'll add is the "beat the clock" mentality added by my wingies. If I don't finish a bomber on the first pass, I've got to rush the next one to have any chance of getting the kill before my wingies jump on him. Again, a "bugger off" command for wingies that worked would be appreciated.

Finally, anybody else notice the "professional courtesy" offered by the Ai gunners to your Ai wingies? I'll (justifiably) get sivved making a run from 6 o'clock, and then watch my wingman make the same attack without a single shot being fired by any of the bombers gunners.

Tully__
10-16-2004, 09:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:

#1 - gunners continuing to fire from a damaged aircraft. Absolutely 100% of the time, any critical damage results in a bailout from the bomber, and they stop firing immediately. I have never ever seen this -not- happen, and I throw a couple of flights of medium/heavy bombers into just about every mission I make. I'm not saying this doesn't happen at all, just that I've never seen it after a very long time playing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This happens when the bomber's pilot is killed. If he dies first, the rest of the crew don't bail and will keep shooting all the way down.

effte
10-17-2004, 01:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Pilots who can shoot deflection have always been the exception and never the rule. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And ditto for gunners... which is what is not modelled. In real life, they found that gunners had such a hard time hitting a moving target from a moving platform that they eventually told the gunners to drop aiming too much and converted into what became the zone system, where they just laid out lead in the general path of the interceptor, hoping to hit it as it flew through this zone.

The precision of the weapons may be less than in real life as far as dispersion goes, just as Oleg stated. The precision of the gunners most definitely isn't.

Dead astern shots are a piece of cake, but hitting anything that is coming in on a fighter curve is a different matter altogether - unless you happen to be an AI gunner.

Regards,
Fred

clint-ruin
10-17-2004, 02:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tully__:
This happens when the bomber's pilot is killed. If he dies first, the rest of the crew don't bail and will keep shooting all the way down. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you know which bomber this happens in specifically? Because I've done plenty a bomber-PK with the 50mm and I've still never seen this.

antifreeze
10-17-2004, 04:04 AM
Taking on bombers in the game is challenging and fun. And no matter how good you get at it, there is an element of luck too, because of those occasional stray, lucky shots.

I think 'AI gunners' is an instance where Oleg has had to prioritise 'game balance' over trying to emulate real life accurately. Either because in some situations better emulation would make the game a lot less fun, or that computers don't have the power to do a proper emulation, or that Maddox Games cannot spend more time or resources refining the details or re-writing the game engine. It's certainly not 'because Oleg can't be bothered to get it right'.

One thing that people haven't mentioned here, which is especially important for off-liners, is that you don't need to see the bomber going down in flames to get the kill. Once a bomber is smoking badly, you should leave it alone and go onto the next one. Later on, you will get the kill even if it lands successfully. You can get the bomber to this smoking stage with a quarter of the risk and ammo that is required to down the bomber there and then.

clint-ruin
10-17-2004, 04:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Antifreeze:
Taking on bombers in the game is challenging and fun. And no matter how good you get at it, there is an element of luck too, because of those occasional stray, lucky shots. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's exactly spot on though, especially for large B-17 formations. There should really be no way to avoid getting hit if all the gunners are up, ammo'd, and on the ball in a sufficiently large pack. The only question was how many times you're going to get hit and where. This is why even the best pilots hated it so much - it's like charging a hundred odd twin 50cal machine gun nests. Only one of them needs to put a bullet in something important, once, to take you out of fighting condition. The more passes you make, the greater the odds against you. The best interceptor pilots hated this - no matter how good they were there was just so much weight of fire being thrown at them that someone was going to get hit, sometime.

Absolutely right about not needing to pound bombers to pieces too - they're just too tough for that to be worthwhile. Set them on fire, or at least damage them enough to make them drop their ord, and you've done well. Good enough is good enough. The B-17 and B-25 light up incredibly easily if the wing tanks get hit, though the 25 can seem to burn for a very long time before the tank explodes. I think the graphic for this just kicks in too early and at too low a stage of damage - what should just be the little grey puff stage is shown as the massive fireball stage.

Sykottica
10-17-2004, 10:30 AM
B-17s shot down half of all the axis fighters lost in the western european theatre i think gunner effectivness is established as a real life fact. the gunners in IL2 are uncannily accurate but lets be honset to get the same effect as real life you would need flights of 20-100 bombers and very few PCs could handle that ( though it would looks SO SWEET! if you could) without the sniper like accuracy of the gunners the poor few bombers you do meet would have 0 chance of making it anywhere. MY problem is with the what appears to be piss poor performance of the NON cannon rounds in this game. id like to see the 50 and 30 cal bullets tweaked up just a little ( i do mean a little not a sarcasm) 8 30 cals on hurris and spits brought down LOTS of he 11s and ju 88s but in this game all it seems to do is ruin the paint unless you get real lucky. id also like to see the damage box on the individual crews brought up a bit. ive watched round after round gor RIGHT INTO the gunners head and he doesnt seem to get hit most gunners will tell you killing the tail gunner was 1 tactic that worked for many of the more accurate fighter pilots. also while i cant speak for russian or german guns US guns didnt have near the vertical dispersion modeled in the game ive seen the guns from these planes put theyre rounds into a 3 foot box but in this game no matter what you set convergence too it seems to be more of a 10 foot box LOL My 2 cents worth.

Sykottica -"master of the pancake and falling leaf manuevers"

Chuck_Older
10-17-2004, 12:04 PM
Half of the Axis planes lost in the western ETO were from B-17 gunners? Can you lend any support to that claim?

I mean, when I say things like "It's a fact", sometimes people want to see the proof of that statement.

I wonder what that "half of all axis fighters" means for the "fact" that unescorted B-17s were not safe places to be over western Europe. they tried to have B-17s go it alone. It was a failure.

But none of this addresses the Spider-sense and X-ray vision the AI gunners have, or their uncanny ability to be as accurate with their first shot as their last.

Fine, let's say that B-17 gunners were just great in real life, and the scourge of the Luftwaffe. What about planes OTHER than B-17s? Should the tunnel gun in some of these planes be as effective as a ball turret?

I get the feeling that people are reading this thread and simply ignoring half of the points I and others are making

antifreeze
10-17-2004, 01:42 PM
> but none of this addresses the Spider-sense
> and X-ray vision the AI gunners have, or their
> uncanny ability to be as accurate with their
> first shot as their last.
> I get the feeling that people are reading this
> thread and simply ignoring half of the points
> I and others are making

lol... I tried not to ignore them.
- because in some situations better emulation
- would make the game a lot less fun, or that
- computers don't have the power to do a proper
- emulation, or that Maddox Games cannot spend
- more time or resources refining the details or
- re-writing the game engine.

Yes, the AI can do some stuff that they shouldn't be able to do. But given the AI shortcomings and limitations in the FB engine, the balance of whether you survive a bomber intercept mission or not is about right I think, even if the shot that gets you was a little unfair because 'a real person couldn't do that'.

The detail and quality of AI that you are talking about may come eventually in about five years. But maybe you should try to accept that we can't have it in the FB game engine; behaviour is simply not supported to that level of detail. Remember that every single thing the AI do has to be described mathematically in algorithms. There isn't a line of code that says 'gunner max aim=600m' that you can simply change to 300m.
Oleg built a great game engine, and he has done his best to take that engine to its limits. But now we are asking for hacks that are well beyond the limitations. He knows that it is a waste of time and energy tweaking the existing engine beyond its capabilities, and that its better just to build a more sophisticated one from scratch.

Chuck_Older
10-17-2004, 01:55 PM
I don't want capabilities that we don't have right now.

Like I said, I would like to see a gunner skill level option in the game. We have pilot skill level, why not gunner skill level?

Also, a simple fire zone layout would be nice, so that if a wing or fuselage is in the way, the AI gun cannot fire

Another thing I'd like to mention is that I haven't been posting "we must haves", but rather I am addressing points made that 'gunnery is not good enough compared to real life'.

I wonder if after all, this is about the gun's accuracy, and not the way the AI can use the gun. I could believ the gun isn't as accurate as it should be in real life, if not in a moving, bucking, manuevering aircraft. It seems that rather the circumstances in which the AI can use the gun is the problem

For instance, the AI tail gunner cannot fire forward. there must be a 'fire zone' rule for him. Simply apply that rule to some other gun positions in a way that the guns cannot fire unless they are really in their own arc of traverse and they are only able to fire when the plane they are bolted to is not in the way, eg: through the vertical or horizontal stabilizer.

How to make the AI not see you is another matter that may well be technically an impossiblity right now.

antifreeze
10-17-2004, 02:23 PM
> Like I said, I would like to see a gunner skill
> level option in the game. We have pilot skill
> level, why not gunner skill level?

Because the engine doesn't support it?

> Also, a simple fire zone layout would be nice,
> so that if a wing or fuselage is in the way,
> the AI gun cannot fire.

But the engine doesn't support that.

> gunnery is not good enough compared to real life

Whether an aspect of the sim is 'good enough' is subjective opinion. I think the AI gunner is detailed enough, all things considered. And the engine doesn't support the gunnery being any more detailed than it is, so there is not alot that can be done.

> Simply apply that rule to some other gun
> positions in a way that the guns cannot fire
> unless they are really in their own arc of
> traverse and they are only able to fire when
> the plane they are bolted to is not in the
> way, eg: through the vertical or horizontal
> stabilizer.

I think this reflects the whole problem with your expectations. The game engine just does not work like that. What you have just described in a paragraph would take a whole book of maths to describe for all the planes in the game. And even when you have written all that successfully, you've got no way to insert it in the game, because the engine doesn't support it!

horseback
10-17-2004, 02:55 PM
Maybe we need to review. The AI gunners in the original Il-2 Sturmovik and now in FB are way too accurate, as they have been in most WWII flight sims. The excuse is that the programmers are compensating for the lack of numbers ("scale," a nearly valid excuse for the amazing accuracy of flak), or they think we're stupid enough to believe that the real gunners were actually that good. I think that the developers have simply gotten too lazy, thinking that nobody else does it right, and without a better simulation around to provide competition, why put in the extra work?

The reality was that hitting anything from over 200m away with any consistancy with a pintle or turret mounted machine gun from a moving plane is close to impossible for the average man, particularly when someone is shooting at him.

Multipassenger aircraft were universally considered easy kills, regardless of how many guns were carried by them, because the gunners couldn't anticipate the bumps and skids the aircraft would take, and at any appreciable range, an error of half a degree would translate into a clean miss. An attacking fighter was much more likely to take hits in the wings than the fuselage, and unless the approach was dead on, the fuselage was more likely to be hit in the back half than the front half (lead being even harder to compute between two moving objects in three dimensions).

This doesn't mean that fighters weren't shot down by the gunners, or that having been hit, most fighter planes didn't disengage at least temporarily to make sure nothing vital had been damaged. But when a single fighter, or pair of fighters lined up on a single aircraft with a rear facing gunner with a .30 caliber peashooter, that aircraft was almost invariably doomed. No ifs, ands, or buts.

If an enemy aircraft was attacking a formation, the gunners might waste a few rounds on them, but 90% of the time, they ignored an enemy who was, thank God, shooting at someone else. They might need those rounds for their own protection.

Therefore I say unto you yet again:

Woe unto ye, AI gunners! For thou hast all displayed marksmanship like unto that boasted by Davy Crockett, King of the Wild Frontier, who didst slay bears, mountain lions and the odd raccoon from over 800m with but a single shot, of which his comrades did say, "Davy doth tell the Tall Tales yet again, but as long as he buyeth the beer, we care not."

Ye buyeth not a single sixpack for the PLAYER, and He tires of thine unrealistic bull droppings! He careth not for 'scale' or other such specious arguements for lo, it is written in the Chronicles of the Aces that aircraft gunners were mere mortals with limited gunnery skills even within 200 meters' range, wherefore multipassenger aircraft were Easy Meat, and eagerly sought after in preference to their more dangerous single seat brethren.

Therefore, thou shouldst never kill the PLAYER or disable his engine from greater than 300 meters, nor even from within that range more than one out of three times, and thy reaction to his entry into thine cone of fire should henceforth be measured in a more human seconds rather than nanoseconds."

cheers

horseback

owlwatcher
10-17-2004, 03:04 PM
Playing off line and making my own missions I find all bombers need to be placed in ace status.
For the flying and gunner aspects of ace status.

I like the Fw-190 with 108s.
85% of my missions end up bomber interception.

The single B-17 is pretty easy if you space your distance from the plane and using the 108s.

The beneifit of instant kill is the crew dies.
The crews bailing out will stop slow up etc... some thing awful.
Missions with B-17 need added content that becomes a "shoot the chutes" mini war.
Have a mission 108 B-17s Vs 2 Fw-190.
runs 1 hour.

Now if you have to close the distance because of your gun arment(50cal,20mm)it is nothing but a **** shot from both sides. Same gun on both sides.

There is a very good chance that both sides will have damage. Which it should be. Yea that sniper hit is annoying. What about the hit the blows up the B-17.

I have a mission 2 Fw-190 one takes off another from above and behing a flight of 64 Su-2s flying 300 to 100ms to attack the airfield then land.
I like to start high and behind and let the AI fly the airfield take off.
Now I had more interceptors at first but as I got better they were taken out of play.
Yea wrong attack you will get sniper fire.
The idea is to shoot as many as you can. Meaning you make sure no sniper shots even get achance of fuel , rudder etc damage.
You must learn tactics that lesson your chance of getting hit.
High count so far 57 with engine damage.

There needs to be some refinments that should be made none I see that would decrease the effectivness just adjustments to their field of fire of gunner and snipers.
Shoot the Chutes problem .

If you wish not to get hit , don't attack or use a bigger cannon.

clint-ruin
10-17-2004, 04:00 PM
I like how we're being admonished here to no no listen properly THEY'RE TOO GOOD and absolutely buggerty-****-all is attached by way of illustration. Not even a track.

person a: they're too good.
person b: well, you probably shouldn't expect too much, and besides, if you're not dumb making your attacks you can avoid getting hit
person a: no, they're too good
person b: uhh?
person b: they're too good
person a: yes I know that .. but what do you mean?
person b: I mean they're too good.
person a: yes but..

Well, that was fun guys. Really. I'm sure Oleg won't mind dumbing them down a 4th time just because of this thread.

Yellonet
10-17-2004, 04:24 PM
Hey, why doesn't the skill level option apply to gunners? Now that's an idea huh?!? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Chuck_Older
10-17-2004, 04:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Antifreeze:
> Like I said, I would like to see a gunner skill
> level option in the game. We have pilot skill
> level, why not gunner skill level?

Because the engine doesn't support it?

> Also, a simple fire zone layout would be nice,
> so that if a wing or fuselage is in the way,
> the AI gun cannot fire.

But the engine doesn't support that.

> gunnery is not good enough compared to real life

Whether an aspect of the sim is 'good enough' is subjective opinion. I think the AI gunner is detailed enough, all things considered. And the engine doesn't support the gunnery being any more detailed than it is, so there is not alot that can be done.

> Simply apply that rule to some other gun
> positions in a way that the guns cannot fire
> unless they are really in their own arc of
> traverse and they are only able to fire when
> the plane they are bolted to is not in the
> way, eg: through the vertical or horizontal
> stabilizer.

I think this reflects the whole problem with your expectations. The game engine just does not work like that. What you have just described in a paragraph would take a whole book of maths to describe for all the planes in the game. And even when you have written all that successfully, you've got no way to insert it in the game, because the engine doesn't support it! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, maybe I just need something explained to me then.

Why can't an AI tail gunner fire forward? Is excluding the AI tail gunner from firing forward in the scope of the game engine?

If the answer is "yes", I fail to see how a couple of the points I have been making are simply "too great an expectation".

Since the AI tail gunner cannot fire forward, obviously, there is some sort of game code that keeps him from doing that. I am baffled as to why that can't simply be tweaked so that a top turret gunner can't fire through his own verticl stabilizer, or a waist gunner couldn't fire through a wing.
I understand that what I SEE happen in game and what ACTUALLY happens may be two different things, but at the same time you're telling me I'm asking for too much, i feel you're oversimplifying my responses.

Chuck_Older
10-17-2004, 04:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
I like how we're being admonished here to _no no listen properly THEY'RE TOO GOOD_ and absolutely buggerty-****-all is attached by way of illustration. Not even a track.

person a: they're too good.
person b: well, you probably shouldn't expect too much, and besides, if you're not dumb making your attacks you can avoid getting hit
person a: no, they're too good
person b: uhh?
person b: they're too good
person a: yes I know that .. but what do you mean?
person b: I mean they're too good.
person a: yes but..

Well, that was fun guys. Really. I'm sure Oleg won't mind dumbing them down a 4th time just because of this thread. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find it hard to believe you think the discussion was as cut and dried as that, Clint. It may be a pointless discussion to you, but it isn't a "Yes I do"/"No you don't" type of contradiction.

Personally, i thought we had brought up a few things like which is modelled well: the gun or the gunner? which has made me at least think harder about my arguments in this thread.

clint-ruin
10-17-2004, 06:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:

I find it hard to believe you think the discussion was as cut and dried as that, Clint. It may be a pointless discussion to you, but it isn't a "Yes I do"/"No you don't" type of contradiction.

Personally, i thought we had brought up a few things like which is modelled well: the gun or the gunner? which has made me at least think harder about my arguments in this thread. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry for that, wasn't really meaning you personally with that, just that .. man .. this topic has been gone over so many many many times now. Olegs last word on the subject was aep 2.00 [and many 'last words' on it before that!], shipping tracks with the game, even, to show people how to do it.

I just don't know if it can really be made any easier than it is now. How can I put this - the way I know that some of you aren't doing this right is because so many many many other people -can- do it without problems. If you want to make it easier then there are ways of setting the scenario/mission up so that you encounter the kind of damaged formation, stragglers, etc, that the real LW did. If you set it up so that there's insufficient flak, attackers, fatigue on the bombers, etc - then of course it's going to be hard.

I agree the realism discussion is a lot more interesting than 'it's too hard' repeated over and over, that's why I tried to throw the stuff from Ask Oleg in there. To do any more work on this than has been done [seperate skill selectors, cloud occlusion, etc] involves a rewrite of sections of the game, and I just don't think that's going to happen at this stage of the Il2 engines life.

Atomic_Marten
10-17-2004, 06:13 PM
The only bomber that I have some problems with is Pe-8 (however head on and from above works well). But since I don't encounter them much I don't have any real problems. B-17 are also fair easy to shoot down, like Jasko said even from dead 6 sometimes. The only real problem that I see with bomber gunners is my impatience - when I get nervous and eager to shoot the bomber down - I mostly get shot by gunners. On the other hand if I execute proper attack, then there is no problem.

When I summarize, if gunners were less skilled, it would ruin the fun for me.

antifreeze
10-17-2004, 07:03 PM
> i feel you're oversimplifying my responses.
oh, I didn't mean to do that. Sorry.

> Since the AI tail gunner cannot fire forward,
> obviously, there is some sort of game code
> that keeps him from doing that. I am baffled
> as to why that can't simply be tweaked so that
> a top turret gunner can't fire through his own
> verticl stabilizer, or a waist gunner couldn't
> fire through a wing.

Well, maybe the engine currently allows for a gunner to have a 'fire zone' as simple as a hemisphere, with six directions - forward, left, right, back, up and down - to allow for different gunner positions.
What you are asking for is that the engine is re-written so the sub-routine that handles gunner tracking is also given information about the planes' modelling: where the wings are, where the tail is, where the stabilizer is, the size and dimension of the window, a delay for gunners to change positions, etc. You are also asking the sub-routine to be altered so that it checks a line of trajectory, and stops the gunner if the trajectory would pierce any part of that particular model of plane. This routine has to handle the data for up to 32+ gunners simultaneously. Woot! Easy, huh? I'll just blow the dust off my javascript book and we'll have it done by breakfast.

As I stated before, that is such a big change it really would be easier to re-write that entire routine, rather than try to tweak it. What you assume is a small matter of changing some parameters, would actually involve providing hundreds of new parameters and then re-writing the engine to do something with those new parameters. And that's just the direction of fire, nevermind the AI behaviour!

Who is going to do it? Who is going to pay them while they do it? Will investing in that little detail entice hundreds of new players to buy the game to cover the cost of it? Also, that amount of extra detail would take more CPU power. Could your system even handle the AI changes that you want to instigate? How many players with lower-end systems would you alientate by instigating these changes?

I mean, you're right, the AI is krap. But that can't be changed by tweaking a few paramenters in the existing code.

Tully__
10-20-2004, 04:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tully__:
This happens when the bomber's pilot is killed. If he dies first, the rest of the crew don't bail and will keep shooting all the way down. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you know which bomber this happens in specifically? Because I've done plenty a bomber-PK with the 50mm and I've still never seen this. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Late model IL2's were the worst, but I've seen people complain of it in other bombers as well. I haven't seen it myself very often recently in anything.