PDA

View Full Version : .50 cal recoil yaw bug fixed in Pe-2 add-on / v4.05m....



bird_brain
06-14-2006, 04:21 PM
I posted this in another thread on the PF forum,, but I will put it up here for everyone to see..... When I installed Pe-2, I saved the 4.04m version as a dual install and did some experiments. After a few tests, it seems apparent that the excesssive recoil induced yaw has been fixed in v4.05m. It is certainly reduced if not gone completely.

I have saved a track with identical situations in the QMB in 4.04m & 4.05m. I have an F4U1-A vs an L2D @ 1000 meters alt. The approach is almost identical and gunnery is by me, not the A.I. These shots were all taken with my feet completely off the rudder pedals.

The 1st series of screens are from 4.04m. The initial images at 14 seconds demonstrate how firing all guns actually yaws the plane to starboard faster than the enemy AC is approaching.

http://jyarbrough.homestead.com/404_1.jpg

http://jyarbrough.homestead.com/404_2.jpg

I released the trigger and lined up again. I then fired another 1 second burst. The plane yawed and pulled the shots off target to the right again...

http://jyarbrough.homestead.com/404_3.jpg

http://jyarbrough.homestead.com/404_4.jpg

http://jyarbrough.homestead.com/404_5.jpg

http://jyarbrough.homestead.com/404_6.jpg


I then fired one more burst with the same result. This is consistent and repeatable as we all know. Holding down the trigger continues the side slip and makes it quite difficult to hit the target....

http://jyarbrough.homestead.com/404_7.jpg

http://jyarbrough.homestead.com/404_8.jpg

http://jyarbrough.homestead.com/404_9.jpg

http://jyarbrough.homestead.com/404_10.jpg

When I let off the trigger, the nose snapped back to port again...

http://jyarbrough.homestead.com/404_11.jpg


Then I fired up 4.05m and flew the exact same mission in the QMB. Here is a 2 second burst with the trigger held down. Notice how the nose is stable with reference to the airfield compared to the screens above where it slews around. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://jyarbrough.homestead.com/405_1.jpg

http://jyarbrough.homestead.com/405_2.jpg

http://jyarbrough.homestead.com/405_3.jpg

http://jyarbrough.homestead.com/405_4.jpg

http://jyarbrough.homestead.com/405_5.jpg

http://jyarbrough.homestead.com/405_6.jpg

http://jyarbrough.homestead.com/405_7.jpg

I got a fuel leak from both wings on that pass.

Here are the .ntrk files if you want to have a look.
Yaw Tracks.zip (http://jyarbrough.homestead.com/Yaw_Tracks.zip)

It seems to me that the Pe-2 add-on is worth it just to fix the .50 cal recoil problem. If everyone already knew this & I am the last to find out that's OK too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Kocur_
06-14-2006, 04:37 PM
Hooray! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

slipBall
06-14-2006, 05:04 PM
Good news bird-brain, nice detective work.

PF_Coastie
06-14-2006, 05:23 PM
Gone for you, but not for others,,,,,,like me.

bird_brain
06-14-2006, 06:27 PM
Can't DL the add on? That sux. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

VW-IceFire
06-14-2006, 07:55 PM
I hadn't noticed...time to go check it out! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

cam1936
06-14-2006, 08:02 PM
i started a corsair campaing a few days ago and noticed that problem, its very annoying

bird_brain
06-14-2006, 08:46 PM
Coastie... regarding the info you sent me by PM, it is odd that with a clean 4.05m it doesn't help yours.

I would be interested to hear how many people still have the problem & how many don't.

PF_Coastie
06-14-2006, 09:21 PM
I believe it is a hit and miss thing. (oh,I did a pun!) Just like the old Wobbles for most Allied planes. I still have them also even though they are reduced greatly.

The corsair is still bad with the gun yaws though. Maybe a little better than 4.04, but not much.

I have tried everything for all the wobbles. My current "best" solution is very soft yaw settings with some filtering.

I just think it is disgusting what poor gun platforms the big heavy American AC are in this game. Not to mention the lack of power in the 8 .50's planes as well.

Aviar
06-14-2006, 11:45 PM
I posted my own impressions in the original thread concerning this topic:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/8791004714/p/11

Aviar

WWMaxGunz
06-15-2006, 12:03 AM
Sit on the tarmac brakes on and fire all guns at once till empty and make a track.
Go to playback at 1/4 speed and check the order and timing which the guns run out as that
is/was the cause, high rof guns on one wing only making unbalanced force = torque.

That test removes all variables of the flying. Has it changed?

IL2-chuter
06-15-2006, 01:30 AM
There apparently wasn't much yaw deflection due to gun firing. Watch Howard's Medal of Honor gun camera film as his four guns jam or run out of ammo one by one. He ends up firing one fifty at an Me110 and there is very little discernable gun induced yaw (what is seen looks a bit like rudder adjustment for aim) and he gets hits . . . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

lowfighter
06-15-2006, 02:04 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Sit on the tarmac brakes on and fire all guns at once till empty and make a track.
Go to playback at 1/4 speed and check the order and timing which the guns run out as that
is/was the cause, high rof guns on one wing only making unbalanced force = torque.

That test removes all variables of the flying. Has it changed?

Yeah, anyone did this test? I can't, don't have 4.05. It's very weird that people see so different things http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

WWMaxGunz
06-15-2006, 03:55 AM
Originally posted by IL2-chuter:
There apparently wasn't much yaw deflection due to gun firing. Watch Howard's Medal of Honor gun camera film as his four guns jam or run out of ammo one by one. He ends up firing one fifty at an Me110 and there is very little discernable gun induced yaw (what is seen looks a bit like rudder adjustment for aim) and he gets hits . . . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Quoting history is all very good but being able to demonstrate just where the sim is wrong is
gold when it comes time to getting any kind of fix. Not "I think because" but "here are the
screenshots/tracks and this shows the actual problem in action". It was exactly that from
Tiger Talon that led to getting the 151/20 swapped ammo mixes straightened out where umpteen
other attempts for 2 years led to nothing --- IMO because before then the claims were that
the MG rounds were weak and in the code and data they are not, just that they weren't being
used in the right amounts due to gunpod AP mix was what non-gunpod 151/20's had and vice versa.

THAT is how close you can point, be wrong, and not get a change. Poor argument is not the
same as wrong but it gets the same result.

rnzoli
06-15-2006, 04:13 AM
high rof guns on one wing only

Let me see if I misunderstood something... weren't the guns the same type on both wings? (Why not?)

Kocur_
06-15-2006, 05:15 AM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">high rof guns on one wing only

Let me see if I misunderstood something... weren't the guns the same type on both wings? (Why not?) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We now have at least 3 variations of .50 M2 - there is slight differece in ROF between them in order to create un-synched fire. In USAAF fighters those varied M2s are spread more or less equally in both wings. In USN fighters someone put them in sequence from slowest to fastest from extreme left of the plane to right, which causes yaw in 4.04 (and hopefully not in 4.05 anymore...).

rnzoli
06-15-2006, 06:44 AM
you mean 3 variations of 0.50 M2 in game, but not in real life, right?

if so, then the next question: why would the plane yaw BEFORE at least one of the guns go empty? I mean there shouldn't be dramatic difference in ROFs, hence no dramatic asymmetric recoil, as long as all guns fire on both wings

I am trying to grasp it because I suffered from this phenomenon in 4.04 PTO, but I noticed that yawing was sometimes stronger, sometimes lighter

I am not sure what variables may have affected that perception, perhaps speed (high speed = less yaw), or rudder trimming, but this seems to be a ghost some still see with 4.05

I think the best test would be firing the guns on the ground, until fully empy, WITHOUT any braking and wingtip tracers on. With symmetric recoil, the aircraft should accelerate backwards, with asymmetric recoil, it would turn as well.

no sur though, how the tailwheel affects this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

bird_brain
06-15-2006, 07:06 AM
I just did the ground fire test and the results are "enlightening". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

With engine on and at idle, no brakes and tailwheel unlocked, the PTO fighters swing through almost 90 degrees right or left. In both 4.04 & 4.05, the guns empty at a slightly different rate on left and right sides, corresponding to the faster firing side "pushing" in that direction.

The outboard guns have more ammo in the F6F, and fire at almost exactly the same rate, but the inboard pairs fire faster on the port side. The F4F is similar. On the F4U, they all fire at different rates although they run out of ammo within 2-3 seconds of each other. The difference in firing rate is not very large and I am going to measure it just out of curiosity. I will post results later. (Yes, I am on vacation and bored... just had surgery http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif)

I did not get the stopwatch out while viewing the tracks, but I cannot see any difference between the 2 versions regarding rate of fire and the swing of the fuselage on the ground.

The P47, P51 & P40 all roll straight back when fired and the guns fire at equal rates.

It is an interesting test, and tells me that the guns have not been changed. I have flown a few more QMB tests and can definately say the problem is not gone, but reduced. Perhaps there is something different with the lateral stability now?

I have to admit that I have managed to confuse myself, but at least the PTO fighters seem a little better now from a "seat of the pants" viewpoint. I can at least hit a target from 12 O'Clock.

rnzoli
06-15-2006, 07:23 AM
(Yes, I am on vacation and bored... just had surgery )
A little bit OT, but I hope you will be all right soon.

The P47, P51 & P40 all roll straight back when fired and the guns fire at equal rates.
Do these planes still have synched guns? I though they are de-synched, too.

Perhaps there is something different with the lateral stability now?
Perhaps. See BearCat's comments on "improved" P-51 in v4.05. See the connection to Aviar's comment on terrible wobbles and still having considerable gun yaw. It may be that the gun recoil is still asymmetric the same way as in 4.04, but better stability for some means seeing less gun yaw as well.

Nevertheless, the asymmetric gun recoil while all guns operate seems totally wrong. Can we suggest an easy fix to Oleg & team? Changing ROF's maybe, to end up on symmetric recoil torque on both wings.

lowfighter
06-15-2006, 08:15 AM
Bird Brain, speedy recovery! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I think something on the line you and Zoli was saying about increased lateral stability might explain the paradox... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

lowfighter
06-15-2006, 08:34 AM
I'm wondering how the effect depends on the speed of AC. I see Bird Brain was shooting atabout 400 Km/h.

Kocur_
06-15-2006, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
you mean 3 variations of 0.50 M2 in game, but not in real life, right?

IN RL we would have infinite number of "ROF variants", as no two guns fire exactly at the same speed. What we have now is improvement and briniging the game closer to reality, than previous 'salvos'. In fact, we have more "M2 ROF variants" than 3 I mentioned above as it seems to me on P-47 no two of them go out of ammo at the same time. That would indicate there are eight variants of M2 ROF, well six of them for sure.


Originally posted by rnzoli:f so, then the next question: why would the plane yaw BEFORE at least one of the guns go empty? I mean there shouldn't be dramatic difference in ROFs, hence no dramatic asymmetric recoil, as long as all guns fire on both wings

They yaw because if those .50 M2 variants are located as neglegently as they are in US Navy fighters, there is somewhat more recoil produced on the side with all fast M2s.
That brings us to the core of the issue. IMO the way recoil affects planes with wing armament is by far overmodelled! It shows in the most obvious way in USN fighters but if one looks at P-47 firing from outside, 12 oclock, bit above, he will notice that it yaws slightly in both directions - no such a thing in pilot's accounts on any US .50s armed plane!

bird_brain
06-15-2006, 10:23 AM
A few more tests result in the following:

In the F4U-1, The 6 guns have a total firing time of 32 seconds. They finish firing in the following order:

http://jyarbrough.homestead.com/50cal_1.jpg

Gun #6 finishes 2.6 seconds after #1. They all finish at a different times seperated by about 1/2 second. This means that either all 6 guns are firing at a different rate or some have different ammo loads. Either way, the guns on the right are all firing faster than the ones on the left in both 4.04m & 4.05m. The guns fire at exactly the same rate in both versions, so that has definately not been changed.

I have reached 3 conclusions from this series of experiments.

1) The gun fire rate is definately porked and makes no sense as it does not adversely effect the USAAF "P" fighters and does slew the "F" fighters around even though the F4U, F4F, P51 & P40 all have the same guns.

2) Whatever improvement there is in the stability of the "F" fighters is the result of something besides the gunfire rate.

3) It probably won't get changed since we only have 1 more patch & we're done for good.

It was odd to note that about 3 seconds before the right wing guns ran dry, the plane yawed to the left instead of the right. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

HayateAce
06-15-2006, 10:56 AM
Why would it not get changed? One more patch is all it would take. The developer just needs a desire for USA aircraft to be accurate.

rnzoli
06-15-2006, 11:25 AM
wouldn't a quick fix help this way?

6 3 1 2 4 5

nothing to touch the fundamentals in the FM, but at least the planes would be possible to fight with.

a change of emptying order would be relatively easy to re-configure without worrying about adverse side effects on other planes. as a developer, I would dream about a solution like this, and the chances to make it in a new patch would jump


BUT one question still sticks out for me: are there fighters, with de-synched 0.50 guns, not affected by this yaw under the same test conditions?

Aviar
06-15-2006, 01:44 PM
rnzoli,

"Do these planes still have synched guns? I though they are de-synched, too."

I was looking at all the P-40's last night and some of the variants have synched guns while others are unsynched.

I had sent a bug report to Oleg a couple of months ago regarding this matter (some planes with .50 cals not un-synched) and he responded that indeed some planes were mistakenly left out of this process. Example:

P-40B: Synched
P-40E: Un-synched

Personally, I have never thought that this 'pulling\yawing' problem was related to the synching or un-synching of guns.

For instance, look at the P-40B. It has synched guns but the plane does not pull\yaw (to one side only) when the guns are fired. On the other hand, the P-40E has un-synched guns and yet reacts similarly to the P-40B.

One plane has synched guns while the other does not and yet neither exhibit the pulling\yawing effects of certain US fighters.

The planes with this problem (F4F's, F6F's, F4U's) all have un-synched guns. Yet, look at the P-51D. It has the same un-synched guns and DOES NOT exhibit the 'pulling\yawing' effect of the above planes.

My guess is that the problem lies with either the programming of the individual guns or the FM's themselves on these 'problem' planes.

Aviar

Kocur_
06-15-2006, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
wouldn't a quick fix help this way?

6 3 1 2 4 5



It definately would! Simply because its the very way that different ROFs .50s are spread in USAAF fighters.

Kocur_
06-15-2006, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by Aviar:

My guess is that the problem lies with either the programming of the individual guns or the FM's themselves on these 'problem' planes.



Luckily its very simple! Each shot causes recoil, i.e. bit of pushing back.
We have un-synched .50 M2s, which means that there are, say six different variants of those hmgs. Lets say they shoot at ROFs (in. rpm):

740
760
780
800
820
840

We can tell they have different ROFs because they run out of ammo at different moments, even if they have equal ammo supply. Now in say P-51D, those faster and slower M2s are spread more or less equally in both wings, say:

740...840...780...^...800...820...760

In another words left wing is pushed by 786 shots per minute, while right by 793. So its about equal:

786...^...793

Now by the way that M2s in USN fighter run dry, i.e. first all of them in right wing and those in left wing after that, we can see how those different ROFs M2s were displaced in USN fighters. Its like:

740...760...780...^...800...820...840

Averagely:

760...^...820

So in USAAF fighters both wings are pushed back with about equal force, because number of individual recoils is about equal on both sides. But in USN fighters push on one wing is considerably greater than on the other, because number of recoils in far greater on one side than in on the other.

bird_brain
06-15-2006, 03:17 PM
OK, we all agree with what the problem is, now how do we convince Oleg & get them to fix it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

rnzoli
06-15-2006, 05:51 PM
it would be good to plan a few standard tests, record the tracks, submit the request in ORR and also to 1C mail address to spread the ROFs on the affected birds, volunter to beta-test it, and ask Crazyivan to help us

making the developers to understand that the solution is very simple, without possible side effects on other planes, is key to getting it into the last patch

it may not the the final solution that would clean up the problems with the instablity of US planes, but at least it would make a few more planes attractive again - i hope

if we have a test plan, i am willing to participate over the weekend. the list of planes suspected with this trouble would be a good start, the test conditions are clear from above, so we should be able to collect the necessary evidence together within a few days time

Aviar
06-15-2006, 08:08 PM
I'm not sure what else can be done. I believe I already posted (in the other thread) the contents of the original bug report I sent in.

I also posted Oleg's reply. So, he\they are aware of the problem. I suppose if people want to send additional bug reports, it couldn't hurt.

Aviar

rnzoli
06-16-2006, 01:13 AM
after a bit of searching in the original thread I found your bug report with the answer from 1C


Yes, I sent a bug report to Maddox Games on February 10, 2006, shortly after the 4.03 patch was released.

I'll post the information below, although I don't know what good it will do. Here is the exact e-mail that I sent:

------------------------------------
The nose of the F6F-3 Late and F6F-5 will move sharply to the LEFT when
the guns are fired. This is in contrast to other planes with similar guns
mounted in the wings.

The nose of the F4F-3 and F4F-4 will move sharply to the RIGHT when the
guns are fired. The amount of movement seems to be a little less on these
two planes.

I understand the vibration effect you are trying to simulate, but these
planes consistently jerk to one side, where most other planes show a random
and less severe vibration to all sides.

I have attached a 30 second track of an F6F-5 which clearly shows the
problem.
-------------------------------------

Here is the reply I got back from Oleg on the same day. (I left any spelling and grammatical errors untouched....of course...):

-------------------------------------
This is present for all planes with wing mounted guns.
All were asking to get relistic "desynchronization" - all now get it.
Each gun has a bit different ROF which is in real life is present really. As
a result you may have such efect as a common summ of the forces applied to
the winfgs.
So its not a bug. Its a feature...
-------------------------------------

Aviar


if we want to submit something to 1C again, we need to do it differently, because there is no point of repeating the same again and again, that will only make them irritated

One difference would be to admit from us in the beginning that yaw axis instability due to recoil is indeed a feature, that comes with our earlier request of de-synching guns, and we have no problem with that in general.

Then move on to clarify that the above feature has been implemented into a limited number of planes with a rather unfortunate side effect, causing a significant imbalance of recoil on the left and right wings, which makes accurate aiming impossible due to the immediate and very strong yaw during guns firing

Then we can clarify that there are several other planes, where the guns are de-synched (yes, the feature), but the recoil effect is kept fairly symmetric by the even dispersion of various RoFs between the left and right wings. For these airplanes, the yaw axis instability is moderate and acceptable (no side effect)

Finally we could conclude that the solution is very simple: only the gun RoF configurations need to be swapped on the affected planes, nothing more. We could attach a list of the "unbalanced" settings to "balanced" settings table for the affected aircraft, from which the corrections can be made quickly and simply by someone in the develepment team, without the need to worry about side effects on other planes.

I would also mention the test method, and indicate our willingness to test the changes in beta stage for next patch, if needed.
I also believe that it would be better to ask someone to translate all this to Russian before submitting and get it reviewed by someone trusted by Oleg. A list of people behind the proposal may also increase the credibility of the proposed correction in gun RoFs.


Sounds like a lot of work for us, with limited chance of success. Is it worth it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

joeap
06-16-2006, 04:01 AM
to repeat wwhat I posted at the PF forum, all I can say is both the Corsair and Hellcat are better for me. I would say the Hellcat is steadier than the Corsair, I think it would just be a matter of doing what Kocur suggested and changing gun order would solve it.

VW-IceFire
06-16-2006, 06:35 AM
In reading the e-mail I suspect that in the English to Russian translation...Oleg did not understand what you were trying to say and thus said it was a feature. Its a feature on the P-51 or the P-47 where the feature works correctly and in that he is correct and I see what he's doing. On the Corsair and Hellcat the feature becomes a bug.

rnzoli
06-16-2006, 06:43 AM
On the Corsair and Hellcat the feature becomes a bug.
Don't ever say anything like this, it's so easy to misunderstand and it is the surest way to offend a developer.

The feature is still a feature. The bug is that the valuable feature was implemented with an unintended and unhistoric side effect, which needs to be corrected.

luftluuver
06-16-2006, 07:24 AM
What I don't understand is why the guns have a different rof when the performance of a/c of one type do not have different flight performance numbers.

Has anyone checked to see if other guns in the game have a variance in their rofs? Surley the German and Russian hmgs should have simular variances in their rofs to the Ma Duece.

SithSpeeder
06-16-2006, 08:32 AM
(Just catching up on this thread)

P-40B: Synched
P-40E: Un-synched This is kind of a good thing if you like your propeller after firing your guns. Granted, only the middle two should be synched, but they should be synched nonetheless on the B. It may be a coding limitation that they can't mix some synced and some unsynced (would have to test some other planes). The E has all wing guns so they should be unsynced.

And rnzoli, I am continually impressed at the thoughtfulness of your replies (especially coming from such a young looking face http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif ). You are a credit to the community and to children under 7 everywhere http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

* _54th_Speeder *

NonWonderDog
06-16-2006, 06:32 PM
That's not necessarily true. I can think of no instance where guns that fired through the propeller were literally synchronized with each other or even with the propeller, although it could probably be done with electric powder ignition.

What is usually referred to as "synchronization" was just a clever method of interrupting the firing mechanism whenever a propeller blade passed infront of the gun. So-called "synchronizer gears" did NOT send firing signals to the guns when there was no prop blade in front. The guns still fired at their natural ROFs (or slightly slower due to the mechanism), but they skipped shots every once in a while.

If anything, cowling guns should show the least salvo fire effect of all. This all really nit-picky though, it's nearly entirely a visual complaint (tracers get hard to use). Planes do not and did not fly through the gaps in the salvoes of M2 machinegun fire.

VW-IceFire
06-17-2006, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">On the Corsair and Hellcat the feature becomes a bug.
Don't ever say anything like this, it's so easy to misunderstand and it is the surest way to offend a developer.

The feature is still a feature. The bug is that the valuable feature was implemented with an unintended and unhistoric side effect, which needs to be corrected. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
How am I offending the developer? Most software developers understand the fine line between a bug and a feature...its sort of an inside joke in the industry. One that I'm sure Oleg would pick up on...he has a fantastic sense of humour...its wry but its there and I respect it. But what I said is no less true...the problem (let me rephrase it) and the feature are the same thing. The problem is in implementation...where on some planes the implementation is correct and useful while on other planes its a detriment to their performance as a gun platform.

Its not hard to understand this...or so I thought. Hopefully I've cleared up any misconceptions.

rnzoli
06-17-2006, 10:18 AM
It's perfectly logical what you're saying, but good logic isn't enough when you talk to a developer/designer directly.

The problem lies with the phenomenon called "Cognitive dissonance" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance). Designing a software feature is a creative work, therefore good software designers are emotionally attached to their products, and do their best to make it fault-free within the time (cost) constraints, including pre-release testing.

This effort is not visible to a user and when they give back a bug report to the designer with a wording like "your feature is a huge bug", the designer will resolve his dissonance between his own feelings and the user's overly negative bug report by assuming that the user is malicious or stupid or at least misunderstood something completely. That will resolve his problem, but of course, it won't resolve the bug.

Users can avoid this simply by taking a rather soft introduction of the problem, and proposing a solution as well, so that the designer can resolve this dissonance by improving his product as well.

My organization reports c.a. 200 errors per year back to various design offices, so it is easy for me to talk from experience. It is remarkable how a nicer personal approach can assist working together for solving the problem, rather than motivating the designer to explain that the bug is a feature (implying that the user is stupid).

Anyhow, enough of me being the smart-*** in this thread, I just have one question. Are we going to submit something to 1C again?

PS. @SithSpeeder:
LOL, this (http://web.axelero.hu/rnzoli/emma-smile.JPG) is what I did after reading your comment about "me" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Aviar
06-17-2006, 11:41 AM
"Anyhow, enough of me being the smart-*** in this thread, I just have one question. Are we going to submit something to 1C again?"

I don't know where you're from, but here in the US, we have a popular saying...'If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself'. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

Aviar

bird_brain
06-17-2006, 12:46 PM
I am working on compiling some results that can be measured. On average, I get something resembling the following;

The F6F-3 yaws up and left between 5 and 10 mils at 400 meters range during a one second burst of 6 .50 cal guns with full ammo load at 400-425 km/h. The yaw starts with 3-5 mils and progresses to almost 10 degrees off target when the trigger is released. You are of course almost on the target by that time, so it makes sense that the angle off would get bigger the closer you get. Releasing the trigger snaps the nose back right about 3 mils at 300 meters.

The F4U-1 yaws down and right between 3 and 5 mils at 400 meters range during a one second burst of 6 .50 cal guns with full ammo load at 400-425 km/h

The P-51D5 yaws left and right between 1 and 2 mils at 400 meters range during a one second burst of 6 .50 cal guns with full ammo load at 400-425 km/h which means it basically stays on target.

The biggest problem I have encountered in testing is that any control inputs that are off center are amplified by the firing guns. I have managed 1 pass in about 12 with the F6F where I was lined up perfectly straight & level with no stick input whatsoever and the guns remained on target for the whole burst.

I think this is what has led us to believe that the problem is fixed or reduced. The closer you are to straight & level at a higher speed, the less noticable it is.

I have not been able to measure any difference between the reaction in 4.04 & 4.05. They appear to be the same.

I can back this all up with tracks, but I am not sure if it proves anything. If I included the track with the rounds staying on target, it could just as easily be made to prove there is no bug even though I know that is the excepion and not the rule. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Aviar
06-17-2006, 04:01 PM
I appreciate your time and effort. Any information is always a positive thing.

When doing most kinds of testing, I like to keep it as simple as possible. One reason is to keep the results from being misinterpreted. Another is to keep the results as consistent as possible.

Although all my testing has been while flying, here is a simple test with results that are very hard to dispute:

-------------------------------------

[MAIN]
MAP Net1Summer/load.ini
TIME 12.0
CloudType 0
CloudHeight 1000.0
player usa0100
army 1
playerNum 0
[Wing]
usa0100
[usa0100]
Planes 1
Skill 1
numberOn0 0
Class air.F4U1A
Fuel 100
weapons default
[usa0100_Way]
TAKEOFF 40768.46 42189.63 0 0 &0
NORMFLY 37288.39 44019.19 500.00 300.00 &0
[NStationary]
[Buildings]
0_bld House$IndustrialFactoryChimney1 1 41988.54 41485.32 365.00
1_bld House$IndustrialFactoryChimney1 1 41996.18 41498.10 365.00
2_bld House$IndustrialFactoryChimney1 1 41981.06 41472.26 365.00
[Bridge]
[House]
------------------------------------

Load this very simple test mission into the FMB. Start the mission and begin firing the guns...short bursts, long bursts, etc.

The plane in this mission is the F4U-1A. Observe the results. Now, switch the plane to another with similar wing-mounted guns. Try some p-51's, P-47's, P-40's.

Now try some of the 'problem' planes...F4's and F6's. See the difference? No measurements need to be made. It's really hard to argue with the results.

Aviar

bird_brain
06-17-2006, 04:16 PM
I am going to put together a bug report based on what I have found so far. I feel like I need to send it within the next couple of days as the patch is due out in a week or 2.

rnzoli
06-17-2006, 06:16 PM
i would also suggest to leave out the FM, just focus on the asymmetric recoil evidence on the ground

the picture you took is the best demonstration that high-RoF guns are all grouped on the right wing, and low-RoF guns on the left wing, causing the asymmetric recoil, which results in greater-than-normal yaw in flight

just a comparison picture with a normal, de-synched plane should tell more than a paragraph of explanation

Aviar
06-17-2006, 10:38 PM
I you are sending in a bug report, you may as well let them know which planes are affected. So far, these are the planes I know for sure have the problem:

----------------
*Nose Pulls Left:

F2A-2

F6F-3 Late
F6F-5


*Nose Pulls Right:

FM-2

F4F-3
F4F-4

F4U-1A
F4U-1D

Corsair Mk. I
Corsair Mk. II
Corsair MK. IV
----------------

Aviar

rnzoli
06-18-2006, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by Aviar:
I don't know where you're from, but here in the US, we have a popular saying...'If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself'. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif
Aviar

Erm... "Together we stand, divided we fall" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

My problem is that I am not a senior forum member, haven't been playing long enough, so I don't want to cross somebody's ambitions by any chance. I am not lazy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif but careful. It would be quite silly to submit 2-3 fault reports about the same issue, of course all argumented in a different way.

bird_brain
06-18-2006, 08:33 PM
I sent a report today with the gun induced yaw tracks I have recorded, a list of the planes affected and those with identical armament that are not. I politely explained our conclusions that it is created by an uneven firing rate on each wing and suggested the fix of rearranging the guns to even it out.

I did not include the F2A-2 as it only has one gun in each wing and in order for it to be "desynched" that now becomes the feature referred to earlier. I am not going to ask Oleg to undo what he obviously spent some time doing in response to popular demand (but not mine!). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

That's the best I can do and knowing how Oleg is, I would not be surprised to get a reply in a couple if days. I will post it if & when it arrives. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Oh.... BTW rnzoli, you are just as much empowered as anyone else to send a bug report. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

VW-IceFire
06-18-2006, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
It's perfectly logical what you're saying, but good logic isn't enough when you talk to a developer/designer directly.

The problem lies with the phenomenon called "Cognitive dissonance" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance). Designing a software feature is a creative work, therefore good software designers are emotionally attached to their products, and do their best to make it fault-free within the time (cost) constraints, including pre-release testing.

This effort is not visible to a user and when they give back a bug report to the designer with a wording like "your feature is a huge bug", the designer will resolve his dissonance between his own feelings and the user's overly negative bug report by assuming that the user is malicious or stupid or at least misunderstood something completely. That will resolve his problem, but of course, it won't resolve the bug.

Users can avoid this simply by taking a rather soft introduction of the problem, and proposing a solution as well, so that the designer can resolve this dissonance by improving his product as well.

My organization reports c.a. 200 errors per year back to various design offices, so it is easy for me to talk from experience. It is remarkable how a nicer personal approach can assist working together for solving the problem, rather than motivating the designer to explain that the bug is a feature (implying that the user is stupid).

Anyhow, enough of me being the smart-*** in this thread, I just have one question. Are we going to submit something to 1C again?

PS. @SithSpeeder:
LOL, this (http://web.axelero.hu/rnzoli/emma-smile.JPG) is what I did after reading your comment about "me" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I definately appreciate what you're saying here and if I were to be writing an e-mail to Oleg like I have in the past you can bet that it'd be well written and designed to simply present the issue without causing alot of upset.

Although I have never heard it called "cognitive dissonance" or even really thought about it I have an intuitive sense for that sort of thing. I'm currently employed as technical support at a university so I've had some experience with this sort of concept in the field if not theoretically. Still I find it interesting to know there is a term http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'll stop blathering and let the thread go on http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

rnzoli
06-19-2006, 04:00 AM
Oh.... BTW rnzoli, you are just as much empowered as anyone else to send a bug report.

That statement http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif inspired me to PT crazyivan1970 and ask for his support in this matter. Particularly to point out the difference to Oleg between the earlier bug report(s) and this one. I am not sure he can do that, but he is my best hope regarding connections to the "inner circle" of developers.

And now... waiting with fingers crossed...

bird_brain
06-19-2006, 07:20 AM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
That statement http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif inspired me to PT crazyivan1970 and ask for his support in this matter. Particularly to point out the difference to Oleg between the earlier bug report(s) and this one.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

rnzoli
06-19-2006, 10:44 AM
bird_brain, check PMs please quick, both good and bad news, but there is still some little hope...

rnzoli
06-20-2006, 01:38 AM
calling bird_brain, calling bird_brain...

rnzoli
06-20-2006, 08:02 AM
bird_brain, tune in....NOW !