PDA

View Full Version : Huge asymetric recoil on F4F and F4U in 4.04



Tater-SW-
02-27-2006, 02:26 PM
Topic says it all. They are bugged. Unlike all the other wing-mounted 50 cals in game, these two yaw hugely when the guns are fired. Always the same side, it's as bad a having a gun shot away on one side.

It is NOT desynching since before you pull the trigger all 6 guns are just as chambered. It is also just the 2* planes mentioned (*and the F6F though not as pronounced on the F4F).

I posted this before and was told that the UK Corsairs don't do this, even with the same 6x50 cal. So it must be a BUG.

tater

Tater-SW-
02-27-2006, 02:26 PM
Topic says it all. They are bugged. Unlike all the other wing-mounted 50 cals in game, these two yaw hugely when the guns are fired. Always the same side, it's as bad a having a gun shot away on one side.

It is NOT desynching since before you pull the trigger all 6 guns are just as chambered. It is also just the 2* planes mentioned (*and the F6F though not as pronounced on the F4F).

I posted this before and was told that the UK Corsairs don't do this, even with the same 6x50 cal. So it must be a BUG.

tater

R_Target
02-27-2006, 03:36 PM
Yeah, I noticed that too. P-40, P-51, and P-47 don't do it.

Waldo.Pepper
02-27-2006, 05:13 PM
Just tried it with a UK Corsair IV and it happens with that plane as well. But in my opinion though you are right when you say it is a BUG, you are wrong when you say it is HUGE, and that it is like have a GUN SHOT AWAY ON ONE SIDE.

Not trying to rain on your crusade or anything.

1. I agree it is wrong
2. I too would like it corrected. (see point 1)
3. I think it is SLIGHTLY more pronounced on the Wildcat - lighter plane etc etc.

But it is minor and easily fixed with a touch or rudder. I rather like the effect it has when the plane I am flying has a little yaw - it most of the time ends up spraying my target quite nicely.

And yes I have a track is anyone is interested.

Tater-SW-
02-27-2006, 09:33 PM
It is as bad as a lost gun on the F4F, IMO, or damn close to that. By the time I correct, I've already wasted ammo. In the -4 you only have 19 seconds ammo, it's hugely wasteful to loose the first tap every single time.

I don't want to spray, I want to shoot where I'm aiming. When all planes have wake turbulence and other factors to make gunnery more difficult I'll be all for them. I don't like it when my plane has such a bug but my enemy can pick where each round will go.

It's not minor, it's about 40 mils in the gunsight. That is totally unacceptable. I won't be flying my favorite plane til it's fixed.


tater

VF-29_Sandman
02-28-2006, 04:24 PM
so fly the f6f..no recoil on that 1, and hmmmmm, more ammo. otherwise, ur just gonna have to get in almost point blank range with extremely tight convergance. downside is, ur aaa elimination capability will be severely hampered.

Tater-SW-
02-28-2006, 08:51 PM
USN planes had a standard convergence of 1000ft (~305m) that's what I use---anything else is cheating http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

It's a bug that needs squishing.

tater

VF-29_Sandman
03-01-2006, 03:49 PM
most online uses anywhere from 185 to 265. if u want to eliminate a ground gun with mg's, a longer convergance...about 400 would be better unless ur good at the art of glide bombing. onliner's want to knock em down almost by snapshots, and a very tight convergance does this very well.

btw, for actual 1000' convergance, ur just slightly off. its 304.81 meters.

Tater-SW-
03-01-2006, 08:44 PM
One, I don't care what is best in the game, I want to fly my plane with a historical setting, so I do. I might have lower scores than folks who game the convergance, but that's life. they didn;t get custom converance in RL, so I don't.

Two, 304.81m rounds to 305m. That's what the ~305 means "about" 305m. You cannot use decimals in the conv setting, so it's either off by 0.81m or off by 0.19m. I chose the latter.

Regardless the USN 50 cals are totally FUBAR right now, they need fixing.

tater

luftluuver
03-02-2006, 04:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VF-29_Sandman:
btw, for actual 1000' convergance, ur just slightly off. its 304.81 meters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Tater said ~305m. '~' = approximately Round off your 304.81 and it is 305.

horseback
03-02-2006, 04:18 PM
The point stands. Two major USN players are hosed by an unrealistic asymmetric recoil effect.

Just substituting the Hellcat isn't enough for the'most realistic WWII flight sim ever'. 1C needs to get back to living up to their PR.

cheers

horseback

Tachyon1000
03-02-2006, 10:11 PM
Oleg has said this is the way it is supposed to be. Unsynched 50 cals on these planes made them pull to the right. Players asked for it and now here it is.

R_Target
03-02-2006, 10:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tachyon1000:
Unsynched 50 cals on these planes made them pull to the right. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Do you have any sources to verify this? Just wondering.

horseback
03-02-2006, 11:06 PM
What players and what were they smoking?

For that matter, what have you been smoking?

cheers

horseback

Tater-SW-
03-02-2006, 11:13 PM
He's 100% wrong then.

Aside from that, only 3 planes are affected, all USN, not their USAAF counterparts with identical weapons and similar (or lesser) weights. On top of that, all the planes don't even pull in the same direction.

So much for the idiotic notion that they should "pull to the right" (where THAT idea came from escapes any ability to figure out). Players asked for the weapon package to be modeled realistically. The current state of affairs is anything but realistic for the F4F, F6F and F4U.

tater

Tater-SW-
03-02-2006, 11:39 PM
I'd add that any effect of asymetry in firing should be apparent from long bursts, not short bursts.

Time=0 all 6 guns are chambered.

Time=0.5 seconds into burst each gun has fired ~5 rounds, tiny variations in ROF spread them out a little, but theree is no "pattern" of guns throwing more or less weight of fire that is meaningful. One gun fires 600 RPM has shot 5 rounds, another on the extreme other side of the wing fires at 750 rpm and has fired 6 rounds in the same time period. That's the maximum effect 1 round in a short burst. 2 rounds in a 1 sec burst. A 0.50 cal round weighs ~45 grams, do the math. mv(bullet)=45. MV(F4F @360kph)=3600*100=360,000. Huge recoil, yeah.

Time=5 seconds. 50 RPG or so are gone. You might begine to see that the no4 and no6 guns are firing more slowly, resulting in less recoil on that side of the plane, inducing a yaw. An effect that requires time to develope.

tater

WWMaxGunz
03-03-2006, 12:30 AM
They might be using the kinetic formula when calculating energy for recoil. Yes, it would
be wrong it's just that m * v^2 does get huge numbers at bullet velocities.

Each shot from .50 is like a sledgehammer. It's the blending of recoils from all the guns
that keeps things straight IRL while in the sim the recoil of each gun may have to be acted
on before the next may fire.

It woulda worked better if the de-synch was by pairs of guns, not individual guns. Or if
recoil from all guns was by one single routine which would be quicker and easier.

R_Target
03-03-2006, 07:47 AM
What I don't understand is that if this is directly related to 6 x.50 cal. recoil, why does it only apply to certain planes with this armament, and not to others? It just doesn't add up.

Tater-SW-
03-03-2006, 08:50 AM
Exactly. It should happen to all of them if it is supposed to be "realistic." It doesn't happen to all of them because it is a BUG. If it did happen to all it would just be a bigger bug, it is indefensible.

There are what, 3 F4Fs, 2 F6Fs, and 6? F4Us? That's 11 aircraft they bothered to go to the trouble of creating rendered useless (dunno about the 20mm F4Us, so maybe it's a little less).

If this was a "feature" it should apply to every single aircraft in the game with wing mounted weapons, not just the 3 that happen to belong to the USN. (suppose I need to test the F2A, I forgot that one).

tater

Mence
03-03-2006, 09:03 AM
The recoil effect in this sim is WAY overdone. Some of the planes just bounce all over the place. This and the porked performance of many US planes has made this sim subpar. It was not, but it is now.

WWMaxGunz
03-03-2006, 12:36 PM
It's the amount of evidence posted here that really proves a point.
Too bad it's the lack of evidence and the point is there's only whining.

Tater-SW-
03-03-2006, 01:05 PM
Excuse me? Simple, reproducible test. Take a 6x50 cal plane on runway. Pull trigger and watch plane from external view. USAAF planes roll backwards, USN planes spin around in a circle due to asymetrical recoil forces.

Second test, fly a F4F. Trim her up, and shoot at a target. Plane will yaw about 40 mils.

That this should NOT happen is self evident.

tater

Tater-SW-
03-03-2006, 01:39 PM
F2A does it too, to the left.

A few I just tested on the ground:
F2A yaw left
F4F-3 large yaw right
F4F-4 large yaw right
F6F-3 yaw left
F6F-5 yaw left
F4U-1A large yaw right

P-40E nothing (tested a bunch of other P-40s before thread in air, no yaw there, either on any)

P-51B nothing
P-51D nothing ( i tested all the other P-51s before I even started a thread, along with all the P-47s)

Ki-61ko nothing

Spent more time waiting for FMB and missions to load than the easy testing. If your plane was purchased by the United States navy in PF, it has a silly yaw. Any other service bought a plane with the same weapons package and they work fine.

BUG.

tater

R_Target
03-03-2006, 03:10 PM
I made a few quick tracks of the planes in question. Wildcats and Corsairs pulling to the right, Hellcats to the left. I also made one of the P-51 for comparison.

http://rapidshare.de/files/14619160/tracks.zip.html

VW-IceFire
03-03-2006, 04:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
F2A does it too, to the left.

A few I just tested on the ground:
F2A yaw left
F4F-3 large yaw right
F4F-4 large yaw right
F6F-3 yaw left
F6F-5 yaw left
F4U-1A large yaw right

P-40E nothing (tested a bunch of other P-40s before thread in air, no yaw there, either on any)

P-51B nothing
P-51D nothing ( i tested all the other P-51s before I even started a thread, along with all the P-47s)

Ki-61ko nothing

Spent more time waiting for FMB and missions to load than the easy testing. If your plane was purchased by the United States navy in PF, it has a silly yaw. Any other service bought a plane with the same weapons package and they work fine.

BUG.

tater </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Just to be straight from before...I believe you mentioned that FAA Corsairs do not exhibit this behavior. Did you confirm that with your test?

I'm starting to see more of what you're saying.

Cobra-84
03-03-2006, 05:16 PM
The FAA Corsairs do it too. The guns on the right wing have a higher rate of fire than those on the left.

http://rapidshare.de/files/14627160/CorsairMkI.zip.html

Edit: The Hurricane IIB also yaws right, so it just isn't .50 armed planes

Anyone think the recoil is a bit overdone? 4 .50s can push back a fully loaded P-47 with wheelbrakes on.

Tater-SW-
03-03-2006, 10:51 PM
Someone else had reported that, I repeated it by saying someone had reported. Later it was posted (as above) that they do it as well. I didn't test them, I only had a few minutes this afternoon.

tater

VMF-351Bostimax
03-04-2006, 02:40 AM
Just took both the Wildcat and the Corsair for a spin. Racked up a few kills in both-just use the rudder a bit...and it will take away the spray and pray aspect of shooting.

Tater-SW-
03-04-2006, 08:00 AM
I can certainly compensate for the error in the game with the rudder, but I shouldn't have to. They could make a patch that randomly displaces every planes convergance point so the sight is no longer boresighted as well and everyone could simply aim at the imaginary point they find is right for that plane. But they shouldn't have to.

tater

|CoB|_Spectre
03-04-2006, 01:37 PM
I must admit, I'm rather amazed at the responses that suggest the pilot compensate rather than agreeing that the issue needs to be resolved. It's like, "Yes...you have a landing gear handle, but it can be cranked down manually, so what's the problem?". Seems to miss the point entirely, doesn't it?

Nimits
03-04-2006, 05:29 PM
I don't think the F4F is useless as is; I still kill things with it at about the same rate as before, just takes some extra (ahistorical work). However, agreeing with Tater and others, I do find it hard to believe any plane yawed as much (if at all) from firing machine guns as we see in the case of the 'Cats and Corsair. I have never seen either pilot memoir or aviation historian mention it. I'm glad we got desynched guns, but it is not really worth it if we get wildly yawing planes in return. Especially if, as others observe, this is only affecting selected planes, then this "feature" should be top priorty for 4.05m fixes.

Tater-SW-
03-04-2006, 08:35 PM
If they created the desynching of the guns by slight ROF variation of guns, the rediculously simple solution would be to set the ROF symetrically for banks of guns based on distance from centerline.

Guns
123 456

Guns 1 and 6 with 1 ROF, say 650
Guns 2 and 5 with another ROF, say 700
Guns 3 and 4 with another ROF, say 750

Done.

If they did it some other way, theyn simply do whatever you did for the USAAF planes since they work fine.

tater

stansdds
03-05-2006, 05:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
If they created the desynching of the guns by slight ROF variation of guns, the rediculously simple solution would be to set the ROF symetrically for banks of guns based on distance from centerline.

Guns
123 456

Guns 1 and 6 with 1 ROF, say 650
Guns 2 and 5 with another ROF, say 700
Guns 3 and 4 with another ROF, say 750

Done.

If they did it some other way, theyn simply do whatever you did for the USAAF planes since they work fine.

tater </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would make sense, perhaps they were desynched such as

123______456

1 and 3 set at 650
2 and 5 set at 700
4 and 6 set at 750

This would put a bias on the right side as the total rate of fire on the right side is greater than the total rate of fire on the left side.

It would be opposite settings on the F2A and F6F.

luftluuver
03-05-2006, 06:08 AM
If a variance in the rof of guns is modelled then why is not the variance in the performance of individual a/c not modelled? Not all a/c coming off the same assembly line performed equally.

If this is a feature then all a/c should exibited this feature, NOT just some a/c.

I would say we are being fed a load of dung.

Kocur_
03-05-2006, 06:32 AM
We have multiple clones of single example of each type of plane, and multiple clones of several examples of guns of each typehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Anyway I belive recoil is overmodelled - it shows in case of that bug, but also if P-47 is pushed by 4 .50s fire. I think most of us saw pics of night firing on ground - shots taken with long exposure - and no sign of recoil affecting plane enough to make any tracer leave path of previous ones.

Viper2005_
03-05-2006, 01:13 PM
Ok let's do this rationally. The first step should be to calculate the correct recoil for the M2.

Thrust = rate of change of momentum

The impulse associated with one round is mass of the round (kg) multiplied by its muzzle velocity (m/s).

Multiply this by the number of rounds fired per second and you'll get the recoil thrust (N).

You can then test in game to prove that all the guns have equal muzzle velocity.

Unfortunately I can't think of a method of testing the mass of the rounds.

But you can measure the rate of fire if we can assume that all the guns have the same quantity of ammunition; guns with a higher rate of fire should run out of ammunition first in a prolonged burst.

If all the guns have the same muzzle velocity, and the same rate of fire the only other reasonable cause for the disparity would be that they're not all firing the same kind of ammunition (ie the mass of the rounds is different).

By testing all of this stuff you can pinpoint the source of the problem, making a fix easier to implement and thus more likely.

Kocur_
03-05-2006, 01:45 PM
Im affraid it isnt that easy to learn actual recoil of said .50 AN M2. Projectile momentum would be starting point to calculate 1st. phase of recoil. Than you got to calculate 2nd phase of recoil, i.e. gun gas rocket effect - difficult but doable (with maximum and muzzle pressure known - heres the problemhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif). But still we wouldnt know how much a single .50 "pushes" the plane back. For the weapon was recoil operated, i.e. recoil affected moving barrel/barrel extension/bolt assembly and part of recoil was consumed by guns mechanism. Lets forget calculating it and just measure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Anyone has M2 at home? Could he hang it vertically by the backplate, muzzle down, fire, and measure how high it jumped up? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

VW-IceFire
03-05-2006, 01:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
If a variance in the rof of guns is modelled then why is not the variance in the performance of individual a/c not modelled? Not all a/c coming off the same assembly line performed equally.

If this is a feature then all a/c should exibited this feature, NOT just some a/c.

I would say we are being fed a load of dung. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Variance in gun ROF is actually not modeled. Its hard coded. I suspect that what Oleg has is just a table that the engine references with 5 or 6 .50cal entries on it. Same values except the rate of fire is different. Then they have a pointer between the code for the model and the code for the guns and bammo you have "desynced" tracer .50cals.

Its not even remotely like doing aircraft performance variance.

Viper2005_
03-05-2006, 03:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Im affraid it isnt that easy to learn actual recoil of said .50 AN M2. Projectile momentum would be starting point to calculate 1st. phase of recoil. Than you got to calculate 2nd phase of recoil, i.e. gun gas rocket effect - difficult but doable (with maximum and muzzle pressure known - heres the problemhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif). But still we wouldnt know how much a single .50 "pushes" the plane back. For the weapon was recoil operated, i.e. recoil affected moving barrel/barrel extension/bolt assembly and part of recoil was consumed by guns mechanism. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually it doesn't matter that much.

Thrust is rate of change of momentum. The gun can't "consume" momentum; momentum is always conserved.

The gun can spread the recoil impulse out, but that doesn't matter in this context since we're effectively modelling the gun as a rocket.

The exhaust gas should be pretty insignificant; its velocity is constrained by the bullet, it has a much lower mass than the bullet, and whilst it may have quite a high pressure, the muzzle area isn't exactly massive; 0.00012667687 m^2. Thus it can't be expected to give a large amount of pressure thrust or momentum thrust.

If we put some middle of the road numbers;

Bullet mass = 700 grains = 45 g = 0.045 kg
Muzzle velocity = 850 m/s (lower than current rounds ~ 930 m/s)

Thus the impulse associated with one round is 38.56 kgm/s.

Now let's fire at 600 rpm. That's 10 rounds per second.

The recoil force is therefore 386 N (to the nearest N).

That's about 87 lbf.

6 of the things firing at once would therefore produce a recoil of 522 lbf which is certainly not to be sneezed at!

Assuming that the .50BMG case is completely filled with cordite (specific gravity 1.56) it could carry about 30 g of the stuff.

This is pretty similar to the mass of the round itself, so for the sake of argument, let's just double the number we first thought of; that means we're talking about 170 lbf per gun at 600 rpm, 850 m/s.

Pretty substantial stuff; take 6 of the things and you get about 1000 lbf, which is a thrust of the same order as that produced by a 1000 hp piston engine at 300 mph (assuming that 80% of the bhp becomes thrust).

Tater-SW-
03-05-2006, 08:50 PM
The calcs are fine to a point, but we're talking about asymetry. So all that would matter would be the thrust due to the difference in ROF.

Ie: 5 guns at 700rpm and the far right gun at 750rpm. The balanced forces from the 5 guns mean that the oddball will need a larger contribution to create a meaningful yaw. In a 1 second burst, the oddball in the above example spits out 82% of a single round 32.13N.

That 32.13N force is it, that's the entire effect for a 1 second burst.

tater

WWMaxGunz
03-05-2006, 09:09 PM
Stick a WWII M2 on a ballistic pendulum and see how high it stays on average while firing
continuous. OTOH there are accounts of losing certain ballpark speeds due to firing certain
ballpark bursts from all .50's in some US planes. So at least the recoil can be guessed to
within that reasonable ballpark.

Kocur_
03-05-2006, 10:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The exhaust gas should be pretty insignificant; its velocity is constrained by the bullet, it has a much lower mass than the bullet, and whilst it may have quite a high pressure, the muzzle area isn't exactly massive; 0.00012667687 m^2. Thus it can't be expected to give a large amount of pressure thrust or momentum thrust. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, problem with gun gas rocket effect is how weight of gun gas affects barrel. There is a way to calculate it properly, but as the very first aproximation we can take rule, that gun gus leaves muzzle at certain speed. Lets say its 1200m/s. 12,7mm x 99 BMG contains 16,5g of propellant. 0,0165 x 1200 = 19,8kgms
Plus yours 38.56 kgm/s we end up at
58,36kgm/s


Not all of that momentum "lasts" until backplate of gun, i.e. affects mounting, a plane in this case. Part is used as work of mech, part goes sideways, i.e. to operate belt mech and part simply changes into heat. Anyway that makes that calulatios quite safe, i.e. what we calculate surely isnt less than could be measured at mounting.

Average ROF of .50 AN M2 was 800rpm = 13,{3}rps.

WWMaxGunz
03-06-2006, 08:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:

Not all of that momentum "lasts" until backplate of gun, i.e. affects mounting, a plane in this case. Part is used as work of mech, part goes sideways, i.e. to operate belt mech and part simply changes into heat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What goes on inside the gun is closed except for mass that leaves the gun. Mass leaves the
front and empty shell case leaves the side which yes that very small energy is subtracted
but it is a tiny part.

Beyond that, if you can affect momentum of a closed box entirely from inside and not by
interaction of fields with outside or anything like then you are Nobel prize material.

Tater-SW-
03-06-2006, 09:23 AM
Doesn't matter of course, because the only issue of super importance currently is the yaw effect. All the NON-USN 50 cal armed planes have a desynch AND don't yaw. Defending the current state of affairs requires demonstrating why the the gun package on a F4F acts one way while the identical gun package on a P-40 does not.

The same would be true of every single aircraft with guns on the wings, BTW. Desynching is desirable for ALL planes to a certain extent, but it would clearly be harder and more likely to create unrealistic yaws for most cannon armed planes because they tend to have fewer guns---in many cases only 2. Doen right, the 50s have so many guns that the forces should balance out overall (since only the momentum difference between the 2 banks of guns matters, weighted for the distance from the CM (a higher ROF gun inboard on the wing will have a lower yaw effect than one outboard)).

tater

Kocur_
03-06-2006, 09:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:

Not all of that momentum "lasts" until backplate of gun, i.e. affects mounting, a plane in this case. Part is used as work of mech, part goes sideways, i.e. to operate belt mech and part simply changes into heat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What goes on inside the gun is closed except for mass that leaves the gun. Mass leaves the
front and empty shell case leaves the side which yes that very small energy is subtracted
but it is a tiny part.

Beyond that, if you can affect momentum of a closed box entirely from inside and not by
interaction of fields with outside or anything like then you are Nobel prize material. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Momentum of barrel assembly just before bolt is unlocked is just its speed and mass. Use those in different equation and you get energy. Accelerator transfers considerable part of barrel energy into bolt, and that one operates everything else compressing main spriong, and finally hits buffer and backplate. I dont think you suggest that a gun works without consuming energy, i.e. with 100% efficiency? Say... friction, heat? If you do, than Nobel prize "material" indeed. Not much of energy compared with ME of a projectile is consumed for that naturally, but still.

Viper2005_
03-06-2006, 09:50 AM
yaw associated with desynch depends upon 2 things (assuming that the guns are fundamentally similar):

i) firing delay - do all the guns start firing at the same time?

ii) rate of fire - do all the guns have the same rate of fire?

iii) ammunition do the guns all have the same belting?

Clearly if the guns are desynchronised then the answer to all of those questions cannot be "yes".

Of course (iii) is a bit of a cheat; you could keep the guns synchronised but give each one a different belting to "desynchronise" the tracers. I don't think that this is the approach used however.

If we disregard that option for a moment, we're left with either a random firing delay, or a series of different rates of fire.

Delay would cause an instant yaw impulse, which would vanish once all the guns were firing.

ROF variations would cause a constant yaw force unless the moments associated with the rate of fire cancel on each side.

Thus if we consider 4 guns

1.2..|..3.4

Taking right to be the positive direction, the moments are

(ROF1*-3)+(ROF2*-2)+(ROF3*2)+(ROF4+3) = moment

If the moment is negative then a yaw force to the left will be generated. If it is positive then a yaw force to the right will be generated. If it is zero then there will be no yaw force.

In other words, it is quite possible to have 4 guns with different rates of fire without generating a yaw force.

What may have happened is that a miscalculation has been made regarding the moments associated with the guns fitted to the affected fighters, and so the modification to the ROF for each gun to implement desynchronisation has resulted in a non-zero moment.

As I have said earlier, this hypothesis should be testable...

Once tested you can email a comprehensive bug report saying exactly what the problem is, what's causing it and how to fix it. This makes life easy for Oleg & Co. and therefore increases the chances of a fix.

<span class="ev_code_red">*edit* Kocur_, just because the gun consumes energy doesn't mean that it can exempt itself from the conservation of momentum.</span>

Kocur_
03-06-2006, 10:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
<span class="ev_code_red">*edit* Kocur_, just because the gun consumes energy doesn't mean that it can exempt itself from the conservation of momentum.</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Naturally! I said that momentum you would measure "at the barrel". i.e. speed x weight of barrel wouldnt be equal to that weigh x speed measured "at the backplate" of gun after cycle was completed, bacause mechanism would change part of that momentum of barrel into heat and part would be used to overcome friction and in clashes of parts - not just "disappear".

Viper2005_
03-06-2006, 10:34 AM
You can change energy into different forms (ie kinetic energy into heat energy), but you can't do anything with momentum. It just sits there being conserved...

You can spread it out so that it results in smaller forces over longer time periods, or you can lump it together so that it results in larger forces over shorter time periods, but you can't change it into anything else.

As such you can treat the gun as a control volume and just measure the inputs and outputs without needing to know anything about the internal mechanics of the gun itself.

Tater-SW-
03-06-2006, 11:28 AM
I don't think there has been any evidence of a firing delay, though that would be trivial to do in RL mechanically.

If that is the case, when the trigger is depressed all 6 guns fire the first round at nearly the same instant. In that case any unbalanced forces would progress to maximum from that point, and would never balance out. In game now it seems opposite from the broken USN planes. There is an instantaneous yaw, suggesting unbalanced forces from the first round (which is silly).

tater

Kocur_
03-06-2006, 12:08 PM
Momentum is conserved naturally but in various exchanges of it between colliding objects, portions of it change their vectors directions, dont they. Total momentum of a unit is sum of momentums of ANY vector direction. Now, we started with LONGITUDINALLY DIRECTED VECTOR of momentum of .50 AN M2's barrel assembly just before bolt is unlocked (the only momentum in the unit) vs. LONGITUDINALLY DIRECTED VECTOR of .50 AN M2 receiver momentum after recoil part of cycle is completed, which would represent recoil of that gun. Those two are not equal. The most obvious reason for that is fact that the gun is belt fed, i.e. part of LONGITUDINALLY orientated bolt momentum is trasferred into CROSSWISE orientated momentum of belt.

NonWonderDog
03-06-2006, 04:00 PM
No matter WHAT you do to it, you will ALWAYS have exactly the same momentum of the gun and it's mounting going backwards as you do the bullet and its propellant going forwards. ALWAYS. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Momentum is a vector; in order for two vectors to be equal ALL components must be equal.</span>

Sorry, Kocur. You're wrong.

BigKahuna_GS
03-06-2006, 10:08 PM
S!


My dad was a Marine Corp fighter pilot during WW2 and Korea and he flew all of these planes. According to him they were "stable as anvil" when firing and did not pull left or right. One of my virtual Squadmates flew F6F's, and F9F Panthers in the Navy. According to him they were great gun platforms. Having a yaw problem when firing the .50's did not exist and is not historicly accurate.


__

Kocur_
03-06-2006, 10:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
No matter WHAT you do to it, you will ALWAYS have exactly the same momentum of the gun and it's mounting going backwards as you do the bullet and its propellant going forwards. ALWAYS. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Momentum is a vector; in order for two vectors to be equal ALL components must be equal.</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who said anything about equalling vectors?

And you are right on projectile + gun gas vector opposed to... barrel group moving backwards until bolt gets unlocked. But further it just takes knowing whats going inside. I dont think you suppose, that VERTICALLY moving lock (locks bolt and barrel extension, during recoil cam on the receiver forces it DOWN, thus releasing bolt) has its momentum VECTORED BACKWARDS? Or that SIDEWAYS vectored momentum of belt just came from nothing?
Reread please what I wrote above: momentum of barrel group, which is equal to momentum of projectile and gun gas, but vectored in opposed direction, is not equal, to BACKWARDS VECTORED receiver momentum - or parts inside receiver, which momentums are vectored in different directions than longitudinal got their momentums from other source than momentum of barrel group before unlocking. Tertium non datur.

WWMaxGunz
03-07-2006, 01:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Momentum of barrel assembly just before bolt is unlocked is just its speed and mass. Use those in different equation and you get energy. Accelerator transfers considerable part of barrel energy into bolt, and that one operates everything else compressing main spriong, and finally hits buffer and backplate. I dont think you suggest that a gun works without consuming energy, i.e. with 100% efficiency? Say... friction, heat? If you do, than Nobel prize "material" indeed. Not much of energy compared with ME of a projectile is consumed for that naturally, but still. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The spring and the moving weights are only spreading the recoil out. Newtons 2nd Law, action
and reaction, the baseplate has to kick equal to the bullets leaving the system of the gun.
If you can violate that measureably then you have a wonderful career in science awaiting!

WWMaxGunz
03-07-2006, 02:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
No matter WHAT you do to it, you will ALWAYS have exactly the same momentum of the gun and it's mounting going backwards as you do the bullet and its propellant going forwards. ALWAYS. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Momentum is a vector; in order for two vectors to be equal ALL components must be equal.</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who said anything about equalling vectors?

And you are right on projectile + gun gas vector opposed to... barrel group moving backwards until bolt gets unlocked. But further it just takes knowing whats going inside. I dont think you suppose, that VERTICALLY moving lock (locks bolt and barrel extension, during recoil cam on the receiver forces it DOWN, thus releasing bolt) has its momentum VECTORED BACKWARDS? Or that SIDEWAYS vectored momentum of belt just came from nothing?
Reread please what I wrote above: momentum of barrel group, which is equal to momentum of projectile and gun gas, but vectored in opposed direction, is not equal, to BACKWARDS VECTORED receiver momentum - or parts inside receiver, which momentums are vectored in different directions than longitudinal got their momentums from other source than momentum of barrel group before unlocking. Tertium non datur. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since the reload mechanism is in motion before the bullet leaves the barrel any loss due
to that are shared equally between gun and bullet.

stansdds
03-07-2006, 04:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!


My dad was a Marine Corp fighter pilot during WW2 and Korea and he flew all of these planes. According to him they were "stable as anvil" when firing and did not pull left or right. One of my virtual Squadmates flew F6F's, and F9F Panthers in the Navy. According to him they were great gun platforms. Having a yaw problem when firing the .50's did not exist and is not historicly accurate.


__ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whoa!!! Let's not let facts and real world experience by someone who was actually there get in the way of porking some USN aircraft!!!!

Please fix the machine gun yaw.

Kocur_
03-07-2006, 09:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Since the reload mechanism is in motion before the bullet leaves the barrel any loss due
to that are shared equally between gun and bullet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WWMaxGunz! Your post brought enlightment! Now I know why you guys insist on disagreement with me. You simply dont know how .50 AN M2 works!
Things you said in previous posts are perfectly valid for fixed barrel weapon, i.e. single shot, bolt action or (pure) gas operated - including those belt fed. The problem is that M2 is not one... As it is short recoil operated, the barrel moves longitudinally in receiver during time in which it is accelerated in opposite direction to projectile and gun gas movement and gains momentum equal in value but opposite in vector direction of theirs.

Before shot is fired from .50 AN M2 the bolt is locked with barel extension which is fixed with barrel. Shot is fired and barrel group starts to move backwards as projectile moves forward in the bore. When projectile leaves the muzzle, barrel group will be ~4mm back and when pressure in barrel drops to atmospherical it will be, say 6mm. This is the point when barrel group has top speed. During that movement springs are compressed, transferring momentum into receiver. Until 19mm of backward movement of barrel bolt remains locked with extension, but before that point lock is pushed down via depressors, thus bolt is unlocked from extension. At this point velocity of bolt is equal to velocity of barrel - thats not good, because bolt is so much lighter than barrel and wouldnt have enough KE to operate mechs. So there is accelerator, a lever pushed by barrel extension at point close to the accelerator pivot, which top end pushes bolt - thus bolt gets accelerated at cost of lowering barrel's velocity. Remaining velocity of barrel lets it travel back a bit until rear end of extension contacts with buffer and barrel stops.

STOP!

What we have at this point is: part of initial momentum of barrel was transferred to receiver via bolt operating spring and little bit via buffer. Rest, i.e. pars leonis of initial barrel group momnetum was transferred to the bolt. From now on, until it reaches rearmost position, its momentum will be transferred to the receiver via operating spring. Also from now on bolt will be transferring its speed, thus momentum into parts of mech and it will be slowing down because of a force which is not mentioned in elementary school momentum conservation examples - FRICTION. All those exaples give you 'instant' change of momentum of colliding trucks, boys throwing balls etc. In that RL object, which is bolt moving rearwards in receiver there is delta t - from end of accelerator work till bolt hits receiver backplate, during which a F, i.e. friction opposes rearward vectored momentum of bolt, slowing it, RIGHT?

So now we have bolt of certain momentum vectored backwards and now its the only object which transferres momentum to the receiver via operating spring - since barrel is stationary already. Next happenes following:

There is extractor pivoted to bolt - it extracts a fresh round from belt link and later its front end is forced DOWN by extractor cam on receiver cover, thus it forces round down the T-slot in bolt face, which also forces empty case down. What happenes here is that a VERTICALLY vectored momentum is created at cost of longitudinal bolt momentum vector, right?

Groove on top of the bolt which goes straightwards for more than 19mm is oblique further to bolt face, so while it didnt affect feed lever knob initially, i.e. when bolt was still locked - it starts to now. Feed lever is turned and opposite end moves belt slide crosswise. So we have CROSSWISE vectored momentum created at cost of longitudinal momentum of the bolt, right?

Top end of cocking lever pivoted on the rear of bolt is forced forward against receiver slot, thus lower end moves to the rear and compresses firing pin spring placed inside bolt naturally. So we have potential energy stored in firing spring at cost of bolt speed, right?

Finally, after all that work is done bolt finally strikes backplate and its buffer, transferring remaining part of its momentum into receiver.

So, simplifing a bit: receiver longitudinal momentum is longitudinal barrel momentum plus bolt longitudinal momentum minus friction, minus crosswise lock momentum, minus crosswise extractor end with fresh round and empty case momentum, minus crosswise feed slide momentum, minus longitudinal but forward directed firing pin momentum. I.e. initial barrel group longitudinal momentum is not equal to longitudinal receiver momentum. QED ...I hope http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Viper2005_
03-07-2006, 09:29 AM
Since momentum is a vector quantity its resolved magnitude at 90º to its direction of action is 0.

As such you can't escape from the need to conserve momentum by invoking changes in direction.

WWMaxGunz
03-07-2006, 12:47 PM
Let's measure the lose due to heat generated by friction? No, let's not.

Consider that the energy to **** and reload that piece imparted to the bolt and springs
is more than bullet mass and change in speed. Just try pushing an unfired, uncased
bullet down a barrel it was made for. And getcherself a -real- strong stick!

And yet, the recoil is only equal to that of the bullet.

As soon as the barrel starts to move, there is loss to the bullet. There HAS to be since
they are connected through the pressurized smoke between them. What affects one affects
the other in terms of momentum.

Yeah things move to the side and no collisions are completely static. Outer electrons
get moved to higher orbits and cause release of photons when they move back down, the
drama of atoms changing relative position with enough energy... jadda, yah-yah.

Please, measure for me force lost by friction in the mechanism. Some day the moon will
crash to the Earth you know because of solar wind friction. But just lately it is going
outward very, very, etc, slowly. You know, I just say it's about 1/4 million miles and
leave the nit-picking to the guys with the tools to say just how far it is today, or
this hour, minute, very second why not?

Viper2005_
03-07-2006, 01:05 PM
You'll need a <span class="ev_code_red">very</span> strong stick since the .50 round actually measures about 0.5095 before you fire it...

But none of this matters if you just treat the gun as a control volume. All the pointless details just cancel out and you end up with the nett force. Which is why control volumes are very useful things!

Kocur_
03-07-2006, 01:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">jadda, yah-yah. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I see you two guys just refuse to comprehend how the weapon works. Or... simply refuse to admit that claim that volume of longitudinal momentum vector of receiver after recoil part of cycle is completed is equal to momentum of barrel group at its top speed was wrong, as based on lack of knowledge on .50 M2 design or lack of knowledge on guns principles of action http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif Not my problem anyway http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

MAILMAN------
03-07-2006, 07:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
USN planes had a standard convergence of 1000ft (~305m) that's what I use---anything else is cheating http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

It's a bug that needs squishing.

tater </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually the standard bore sighting of wing mounted .50's for US planes was to converge at 900 feet / 300 yds or 274.32 meters. The yawing upon firing with the Wildcat and Corsair is quite pronounced in the zoomed out view and is progressively worse as you zoom in. It needs correction.

MAILMAN------
03-07-2006, 08:35 PM
Just took a quick flight in a F4U-1A.

Nose yawed right everytime the trigger was pulled.

I then sat on an escort carrier deck with the chocks in. Engine not running. Tailwheel locked.

Shot the entire load (2350 Rounds) in bursts and made a track of it.
Below is the order in which the .50 MG ran out of ammo:

1. Inboard starbard gun ran out of ammo. 400RPG
2. Middle Starbard gun ran out of ammo. 400RPG
3. Outboard Starbard gun ran out of ammo.375RPG
4. Inboard Port gun ran out of ammo. 400RPG
5. Outboard Port gun ran out of ammo. 375RPG
6. Middle Port gun ran out of ammo. 400RPG

All the port guns fired for a couple of seconds after the starbard guns ran out. The middle and outboard port guns fired for a considerable time after the starbard guns ran out. When slowing the track down you could easily see which and when each gun stopped firing.

If the firing rates of the guns were the same (in RL their was probably a slight variation due to quality control, tolerances etc.) then the guns should have run out of ammo fairly close together with the outboard guns stopping firing first followed closely by the inboard four guns. I can't believe that an abnormality like this would have been "modeled" intentionally into the game. So my vote is a bug of some sort caused by some oversight giving the developers the benefit of the doubt. At my request one of my Squaddies asked his Dad, who flew corsairs in WWII, if the plane yawed when the guns were fired in bursts and prolonged firing, and the answer was a resounding no. He said it was a rock solid gun platform.

Tater-SW-
03-07-2006, 09:02 PM
USN planes were boresighted at 1000ft, not 300 yards according to everything I've read. I have no idea about USAAF planes, which I understand to have been far more variable because pilots tended to "own" their planes more (or borrow them from their crew chiefs ;-)

USN planes didn't vary from the standard hamonization distance becasue no pilot ever knew wihich bird he'd be flying, so they all needed to be as identical as possible.

Regardless, the yaw bug is no less a bug in need of squishing.

tater

Kocur_
03-07-2006, 10:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Below is the order in which the .50 MG ran out of ammo:

1. Inboard starbard gun ran out of ammo. 400RPG
2. Middle Starbard gun ran out of ammo. 400RPG
3. Outboard Starbard gun ran out of ammo.375RPG
4. Inboard Port gun ran out of ammo. 400RPG
5. Outboard Port gun ran out of ammo. 375RPG
6. Middle Port gun ran out of ammo. 400RPG </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, so here's the bug: instead of putting faster-slower-slowest .50 in each wing, like it is in say, P-51D, they put the faster guns in starboard wing, and slower in port wing. Obviously a simple bug - worth sending to 1C.

stansdds
03-08-2006, 04:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Posted Tue March 07 2006 19:35
Just took a quick flight in a F4U-1A.

Nose yawed right everytime the trigger was pulled.

I then sat on an escort carrier deck with the chocks in. Engine not running. Tailwheel locked.

Shot the entire load (2350 Rounds) in bursts and made a track of it.
Below is the order in which the .50 MG ran out of ammo:

1. Inboard starbard gun ran out of ammo. 400RPG
2. Middle Starbard gun ran out of ammo. 400RPG
3. Outboard Starbard gun ran out of ammo.375RPG
4. Inboard Port gun ran out of ammo. 400RPG
5. Outboard Port gun ran out of ammo. 375RPG
6. Middle Port gun ran out of ammo. 400RPG

All the port guns fired for a couple of seconds after the starbard guns ran out. The middle and outboard port guns fired for a considerable time after the starbard guns ran out. When slowing the track down you could easily see which and when each gun stopped firing.

If the firing rates of the guns were the same (in RL their was probably a slight variation due to quality control, tolerances etc.) then the guns should have run out of ammo fairly close together with the outboard guns stopping firing first followed closely by the inboard four guns. I can't believe that an abnormality like this would have been "modeled" intentionally into the game. So my vote is a bug of some sort caused by some oversight giving the developers the benefit of the doubt. At my request one of my Squaddies asked his Dad, who flew corsairs in WWII, if the plane yawed when the guns were fired in bursts and prolonged firing, and the answer was a resounding no. He said it was a rock solid gun platform.


-)-MAILMAN-

Posts: 106 | Registered: Wed April 21 2004 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Bet this holds true for the Wildcat, Hellcat and Buffalo too. Yeah, this definitely needs to be fixed.

WWMaxGunz
03-08-2006, 07:35 AM
*Looks like* someone on dev team who fills these things in may have a sense of humor
spurred on by post whining and seeing room for mischief.
Maybe.
Or maybe just too burned out tired and hurried to check everything carefully three times,
the changes could have been by program with random number generator and the patterns are
coincidence.

It took how long to straighten out MG151/20 ammo? 2 years!

crazyivan1970
03-08-2006, 11:30 AM
Anyone compiled report to 1c? Or we making another 20 pages thread in high hopes that Maddox will look at it?

Tater-SW-
03-08-2006, 12:37 PM
At least 2 of us have. One was replied to saying that the idiotic, unrealistic yaw on the USN planes was actually a "feature." I wish I was joking.

tater

mwhincup
03-08-2006, 12:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Below is the order in which the .50 MG ran out of ammo:

1. Inboard starbard gun ran out of ammo. 400RPG
2. Middle Starbard gun ran out of ammo. 400RPG
3. Outboard Starbard gun ran out of ammo.375RPG
4. Inboard Port gun ran out of ammo. 400RPG
5. Outboard Port gun ran out of ammo. 375RPG
6. Middle Port gun ran out of ammo. 400RPG </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, so here's the bug: instead of putting faster-slower-slowest .50 in each wing, like it is in say, P-51D, they put the faster guns in starboard wing, and slower in port wing. Obviously a simple bug - worth sending to 1C. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What?!!!
Mailman's test shows that the gun responses are SYMMETRIC. In reality this would mean the average yawing moment is zero. What's probably happened is that the modelled average recoil forces have then (incorrectly) been bound to the wrong guns in an assymetric way.

Viper2005_ has tried hard here to explain that the net average yawing moment is (assuming all parameters such as muzzle velocity and mass of round are the same for each gun) purely proportional to the sum of the products of the lateral offset from centreline and the rpm. Thus, if the aforementioned sum is zero, as indicated by MAILMAN's (symmetric) results, the yawing moment SHOULD be zero. The detail of how the gun works is irrelevant.

As far as variance goes - simulation of this kind is DETERMINISTIC, i.e. 100% repeatable. There is nothing to suggest that any aspect of any of these aircraft MODELS is random.

Kocur_
03-08-2006, 01:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What?!!!
Mailman's test shows that the gun responses are SYMMETRIC. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Each shot from any M2 produces an equal impuls, right? The more shots per second the more 'push' by the gun, right? Since in Mailman's test ALL starboard guns get empty before ANY of port guns does, thus ROFs of starbard guns are higher than ROFs of port guns. Thus starboard guns produce more 'push' per second than port guns.

Tater-SW-
03-08-2006, 01:10 PM
It doesn't show the recoil is symetric at all. Look at that. The guns fire so that all the right guns have a higher ROF than all the left guns. On the right side it shows that the inboard and middle 50s have the highest ROFs on the entire plane. You'd expect the 2 guns with less ammo to run out at the same time, but they don't. That means the left inboard gun is firing slower than even the rigth outboard gun with less ammo.

Symetric would be something like the 2 outboard guns run out together, and the 2 middle guns run out together, and the 2 inboard guns run out together. Each left-right pair could have a different ROF.

tater

mwhincup
03-08-2006, 02:03 PM
My apologies - I was reading RPG as RPM

zoinks_
03-08-2006, 02:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
At least 2 of us have. One was replied to saying that the idiotic, unrealistic yaw on the USN planes was actually a "feature." I wish I was joking.

tater </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i bought this sim specifically for pto. i haven't flown much since 4.03 and finally started Bird Brain's Cactus Diary campaign. i do not like this new feature. i hope this is a joke. if this is the official decision, 4.04 is headed to the recycle bin.

does 4.03 do this as well? after several missions i am considering going to 4.02 or 4.03.

Viper2005_
03-08-2006, 02:19 PM
The obvious thing to do next is to record a track firing the guns to empty and time it. Then if you know the RPG you can calculate the cyclic ROF.

If you're feeling really hardcore you could try setting up a map in FMB with a camera and a splash target.

Set the maximum possible convergence and fire at the splash target. Then replay the track in slo-mo and count the splashes.

I suggest marking the position of the camera with a capital ship or similar in order that you can consistantly put your rounds near enough to the camera. The other advantage of this approach is that it allows you to make multiple passes at relatively short range for easier ballistics...

The best way to make the devs take notice of a bug report is to do all their homework for them.

You should aim to email them a comprehensive report saying something like "Gun #3 fires at x rpm which is y rpm too fast. Gun #1 fires at a rpm which is b rpm too slow; here's the evidence, please fix".

That way all they've got to do is go to the appropriate file and tweak a number. If you just tell them that the aeroplane yaws when firing, you're effectively asking them to perform a series of time-consuming tests in order to work out what the problem is before they can fix it.

They don't have time to do that; BOB is their priority, and rightly so.

I think that the community would benefit greatly from an organised flight test programme run by a reasonably large team of pilots and engineers, as this would make it much easier to squash bugs like this (and the previous Mustang III high altitude performance bug) quickly.

But that's another thread...

MAILMAN------
03-08-2006, 05:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Anyone compiled report to 1c? Or we making another 20 pages thread in high hopes that Maddox will look at it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Tell me how and exactly where to send the .ntrk file of the guns emptying, where it will actually be looked at, and I will be happy to send it.

If it goes the way of the fuel tank in the F4U-1D never indicating full even with 100% fuel and max drop tanks we are in for a long wait. I sent screen shots of the cockpits for all versions of the corsair at 25, 50, 75 and 100 where this bug affected only the -D model to the bug email many many months ago. It still indicates less than 100% when maxed out on fuel after several patches. Obviously it was not fixed.

MAILMAN------
03-08-2006, 06:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
USN planes were boresighted at 1000ft, not 300 yards according to everything I've read. I have no idea about USAAF planes, which I understand to have been far more variable because pilots tended to "own" their planes more (or borrow them from their crew chiefs ;-)

USN planes didn't vary from the standard hamonization distance becasue no pilot ever knew wihich bird he'd be flying, so they all needed to be as identical as possible.

Regardless, the yaw bug is no less a bug in need of squishing.

tater </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have several references to 300 yds and even a picture of a corsair with its tail lifted for boresighting with the caption under it referencing a convergence of 900 feet.

MAILMAN------
03-08-2006, 06:33 PM
I just sent the description of the guns running out of ammo and attached the .ntrk to this address.

PF@1C.ru

Is this the correct place to send bug reports?

Aviar
03-08-2006, 09:40 PM
Yes, MAILMAN.

Aviar

MAILMAN------
03-09-2006, 07:25 PM
Okay further tests on USN & USAAF Aircraft with 6 x .50 MG. I also added the 4 x 20mm. cannon of the F4U-1C for comparison. The numbers indicated the order in which the gun ran out of ammo.

PO=Port Outboard
PM=Port Middle
PI=Port Inboard
SI=Starboard Inboard
SM=Starboard Middle
SO=Starboard Outboard

PO PM PI SI SM SO

6 5 4 1 2 3 F4U-1
6 5 4 1 2 3 F4U-1A
6 5 4 1 2 3 F4U-1D
X 1 1 1 1 X F4U-1C

5 1 2 3 4 6 F6F-3
5 2 1 4 3 6 F6F-5

Both Hellcats Port OB & Starboard OB both fired for a long time after the inboard 4 ran out of ammo.


4 5 6 2 1 3 F4F-4

1 3 6 4 5 2 P40E
1 3 6 4 5 2 P40M

1 2 3 3 2 1 P-51D-20NA
2 3 5 6 4 1 P-51D-5NT

All four cannon ran out of ammo at the same time for the F4U-1C. The P-51D-20NA MG's ran out of ammo in matched pairs starting from Outboard to Middle and finally to inboard. Both Hellcats outer guns were the last to run out of ammo quite a long time after the other four.

The outboard guns had less room for the guns and magazines and therefore had less RPG (in the Corsair it was 25 RPG less) and should cease firing first. The other four guns which had the same ammo load per gun should cease fire at the same time shortly after the outboard pair. The time would depend on how long the trigger is held.

How the developers came up with the order in which guns ran out of ammo is a mystery. Is there some formula that none of us know about. The firing rate for the individual guns may not have been exact, but what is modeled is totally unacceptable and inaccurate. At the very least each US plane, both USAAF and USN/USMC that has a battery of 6 x .50 MG should have the same firing rate per gun within a small tolerance. Also the outer guns which had less ammo should be the first to go dry. The remaining four should go dry together. The only variance between these planes is the amount of ammo that each plane could carry limited by the area inside the wing that carried the guns. Since all guns fire when the trigger is pulled with these aircraft and the guns are the same (Browning M2) and the firing rate is the same (unless you are trying to model in field conditions causing abnormal operation) then the above aircraft should ALL run out of ammo in the same manner, outer pair of guns first at the same time and then the remaining four at the same time.

The only guns that I know of that were mounted unique were the variants of the P-51 that carried a battery of 4 x .50 cal. MG because the wing was so thin that the MG were mounted canted over (rolled) at an angle to make them fit. This did cause gun jambs.

I will send this to the PF@1C.ru email address after this is posted.

lairdperkins
03-09-2006, 09:37 PM
Ok... as I understood the P-51 fix...

All six guns were firing at the same time, and at the same RoF. This was producing burst patterns, six rounds followed by a gap, followed by another six rounds, that were large enough to "fly through".

Maybe I'm laboring under a false assumption here. In real life, when the pilot pulled the trigger, it sent an electrical impulse that closed a solenoid at the tail end of each gun and fired the gun right? I was under the impression that the solenoids closed in a specific order, and not all at the same time so that the guns fired in pairs, one on each wing, timed so that a sheet was laid down instead of bursts. Obviously this would degrade somewhat over a few seconds worth of burst, but as soon as you let up, and press the trigger again, it would reset.

Is that what they did to fix the P-51 and P-40, or did they just jigger the RoF on random guns so it looks like a sheet after you hold the trigger a few seconds?

Also, the P-51's six guns are all outside the propeller arc... are any of the USN planes firing through the prop, and if so how does this affect RoF on the inner guns?

MAILMAN------
03-09-2006, 10:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lairdperkins:
Ok... as I understood the P-51 fix...

All six guns were firing at the same time, and at the same RoF. This was producing burst patterns, six rounds followed by a gap, followed by another six rounds, that were large enough to "fly through".

Maybe I'm laboring under a false assumption here. In real life, when the pilot pulled the trigger, it sent an electrical impulse that closed a solenoid at the tail end of each gun and fired the gun right? I was under the impression that the solenoids closed in a specific order, and not all at the same time so that the guns fired in pairs, one on each wing, timed so that a sheet was laid down instead of bursts. Obviously this would degrade somewhat over a few seconds worth of burst, but as soon as you let up, and press the trigger again, it would reset.

Is that what they did to fix the P-51 and P-40, or did they just jigger the RoF on random guns so it looks like a sheet after you hold the trigger a few seconds?

Also, the P-51's six guns are all outside the propeller arc... are any of the USN planes firing through the prop, and if so how does this affect RoF on the inner guns? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The planes that I tested have guns that are mounted outside of the propeller arc. They are all using the same machine guns. The F4F-4 has the outer guns further out on the wing away from the other two.

I also believe that each gun had a toggle switch to arm the guns allowing the pilot to select exactly how many guns he wanted to fire and which guns. This feature is not modeled in the game for the 6 x .50 aircraft, although you could argue that point with the fact that the P-47 defaults to using two trigger buttons to fire all 8 guns.

If as you say the guns did not fire at exactly at the same time, but rather they fired in pairs sequentially, then the pairs would fire in a particular order with the guns having the least ammo using up its ammo first. The inner two pairs of guns would continue to fire until they ran out of ammo at approximately the same time.

So it appears to me that in this game either the firing rate is different for each individual gun on these particular planes, the ammo load is different for each individual gun or the guns are sequenced to fire individually at random times and rates. Although the P-51D-20NA ceases firing in pairs with the outer guns running out of ammo first, the middle pairs do not run out reasonably close together. The P-51D-5NT has a similar sequence, but the guns stop firing individually. But as I point out the 4 x20 mm cannon modeled in this game for the F4U-1C all started firing at the same time and stopped firing at exactly the same time, when the four guns ran out of ammo. I hope this answers your question.

NonWonderDog
03-09-2006, 11:24 PM
AFAIK, all the guns were actuated at the same time, and they just fired mechanically at max rpm. The guns fired with a spread of fire rates just out of machining tolerances. "Jiggering" the RoF for each gun was a correct and necessary fix. Oleg should probably balance out the couples to keep zero net torque when firing just so it doesn't ALWAYS pull to the same direction, but such a fix would be largely artificial. It might be way too complex for the benefit, too, depending on the way the sim does fire rates. (EDIT -- I mean that if each different fire rate is a separate gun object in the code, EVERY gun on EVERY Ma Deuce armed plane would have to be distinct...)

Setting guns to fire in sequence would just be pointless electronics complexity, especially during wartime. I'm not aware of it ever being done on any plane.

stansdds
03-10-2006, 05:02 AM
I've never heard or read of wing mounted machine guns having any sort of device to vary their rate of fire or the time that they begin firing. Toggle switches in the cockpit (in the Corsair, F4U-1A and all subsequent, it was the set of switches just to the left of the gunsight, the F4U-1's switches were on the console on the left side of the cockpit) selected guns in pairs. The spacing of tracers would be a result of each individual gun firing at a slightly different rate (from manufacturing tolerance variations and wear) and how the armorers set the ratio of tracer rounds to other types and which type was the first on each belt of ammo.

Altering the ROF in order to desynch the guns in a sim is fine, but the ROF should be balanced so that there is no yawing of the aircraft to one side or the other.

MAILMAN------
03-10-2006, 06:06 AM
The question that still remains as to why the guns fire differently from plane to plane. If they are all firing Browning M2 .50 with 6 gun configurations why is their such a wide disparity as to HOW and what order they are firing and running out of ammo. No matter how you disect it guns belted with less ammo should, all things being equal, run out of ammo first ie. the outer pair of guns. The remaining four guns should then run out of ammo at approximatley the same time or darn close to it.

To NonWonderDog:
Timing relays could have been used to fire the guns in a specific sequence. They can be very small and can be very reliable. The technology was available at the time. Did they do this, I don't have any idea.


Why does the F4U-1C armed with 20 mm cannon with the same ammo load per gun all stop firing at almost precisely the same time? Should not the F4U-1, F4U-1A and F4U-1D armed with Browning M2 .50 MG run out of ammo in the order of OUTER Pair (375 RPG) first followed shortly by the inner four (400 RPG)? Having said this shouldn't all of the Browning M2 six gun configurations be set up similarly depending on the amount of ammo for each gun base on each plane's historical loadout? Test it for yourselves you can see when each gun stops firing. Then try to explain why this is happening this way. I certainly can't. My best guess as to why this can happen in the "GAME" is if the Browning M2 guns have been coded for different firing rates even on the same aircraft or the ammo load for each gun on each aircraft has been set incorrectly then we will see the results we are now getting. This would explain why the planes initially yaw so much when the trigger is pulled and at the end when one wing keeps firing while the other stops from lack of ammo.

WWMaxGunz
03-10-2006, 08:02 AM
Computer code simulation: all events are in sequence, one at a time.
Unless an averaging algorithm is used one thing happens before the next, and so on.

Reality: everything at once according to being.

A model that tries to be too perfect by parts will be worse than a mediocre attempt at whole.
This *may* be what is happening.

Viper2005_
03-10-2006, 08:22 AM
AFAIK IRL the guns would all fire at pretty much the same time; the actuating signal might take slightly longer to reach the outer guns because it's got further to travel, but this can probably be safely neglected in the context of the game.

The guns varied slightly in ROF and so after a short while would produce a stream of fire.

This variation means that each gun would have a slightly different recoil; these recoil differences might reasonably be expected to cancel, or nearly so, leaving the pilot with a steady gun platform.

Of course, if the rates of fire didn't cancel then the pilot would report the problem in short order and it would be fixed.

But that's reality; it doesn't directly relate to the game.

Desynchronisation in game could be achieved by several methods:

i) desynchronised gun actuation

ii) desynchronised belting (since we can only see the tracer most of the time, and visual effects can be "tweaked")

iii) different ROF for each gun hard coded

iv) random ROF for each gun

Option (iv) is the best for "realism", but it's computationally intensive and means that from time to time players would end up with a "bad" aeroplane resulting in legion complaints.

Kocur_
03-10-2006, 08:53 AM
Well its been already discussed: no two guns have exactly the same ROF, WW2 selenoids responce times werent the same either, there are differences between rounds, etc. Anyway what was observed before, i.e. (h)mgs firinig perfectly timed salvos was kinda silly and unreal.

Seems that what we have now is case iii) of Viper's classification. I think so after flying a good while P-51 - no two guns are emptied at in same time and I think empting sequence is always the same. So I guess they have a number of 'sub-types' of .50 M2, each with different ROF. Seems that what happened in case of USN fighter is that a guy in 1C put M2s of those sub-types in order of ROFs in positions from left to right, instead of spreading them equally in both wings. The simplest fix would be copying P-51C/D M2s sequence, plus USN fighters ammo quantities of course.

NonWonderDog
03-10-2006, 09:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MAILMAN------:
To NonWonderDog:
Timing relays could have been used to fire the guns in a specific sequence. They can be very small and can be very reliable. The technology was available at the time. Did they do this, I don't have any idea. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course, they're simple enough to make. The point is that it's extra complexity for very little benefit. The firing times would diverge anyway, so you wouldn't even notice after a second of firing.

I'm not sure what 1940's era relays looked like, anyway. Probably just a couple little electromagnets in a glass tube?

MAILMAN------
03-10-2006, 12:42 PM
Length of travel causing delay of the signal (voltage drop) to the outer guns is negligible due to the relative short distance traveled. Electricity travels at the speed of light. Having had to use replacement parts from that era on our 1950's built diesel electric submarine (electrician's mate and interior communications electrician) it was conceivable that they used some of these very small electro magnetic solenoids and timing relays. These same type of electomagnetic solenoids and relays are pretty much what I still find in electical supply stores and in use today. Not much has changed. Now electronic control is a whole different story.

Now what packs a bigger recoil, 20 MM cannon like on the F4U-1C or M2 .50 MG on the F4U-1,1A,!D? Why doesn't the F4U-1C have the same problems of its MG stablemates?

Since the F4U-1C with four cannon doesn't seem to have this problem and all start and stop firing at the same time why can't this routine be used with the other non-cannon Corsairs, Hellcats etc.? How difficult is it for programmers to set a firing sequence of lets say Outboard guns fire first followed by the middle guns then the inboard guns and repeat the sequence each time the trigger is pulled until the outer guns run out of ammo and the sequence then becomes middle guns then inner guns until those four run out of ammo. Why is it any harder to go from 4 guns to six guns?

I think MAXGUNZ has it right. I think in their endeavour to make things "perfect" they made a mistake. If the guns were firing in pairs and sets then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

My examples are:
1. The P-51D-NA20 in which the guns are firing in pairs evidenced by the fact that they ceased firing in pairs. The nose does not yaw due to firing the guns.

2. The F4U-1C in whch the four 20 mm cannon start firing and stop firing together. The nose does not yaw due to firing the guns.

There should be two firing rates not six as it seems in some aircraft: one for the outer guns and one for the inner four guns. The recoil being channeled to the rear of the plane rather than unbalanced and towards its side (nose yaw.)

Having been trained on M2 so long ago I can no longer recall all its inner workings. I do remember that its firing rate was controlled by how long I held the trigger down on each burst right up to the cyclic rate by simply holding down the trigger.

Tater-SW-
03-10-2006, 12:44 PM
BTW, the effect holds true for ALL USN fighterws, even the F2A and F4F-3. Not just the 6 gun versions.

tater

MAILMAN------
03-10-2006, 12:58 PM
Seems that they just kept the same routine then just dropping the extra two guns.

Flew a F4F-4 last night and had a Zeke-21 almost filling my windscreen (fuselage filled the gunsight) when I pulled the trigger. He never knew I was there, but the nose jumped way to the right and to be honest I don't think any for rounds from my burst hit him. He calmly rolled left when he saw my tracers harmlessly pass by his right side cockpit grateful that I had missed.

Kocur_
03-10-2006, 01:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MAILMAN------:

Now what packs a bigger recoil, 20 MM cannon like on the F4U-1C or M2 .50 MG on the F4U-1,1A,!D? Why doesn't the F4U-1C have the same problems of its MG stablemates?
Since the F4U-1C with four cannon doesn't seem to have this problem and all start and stop firing at the same time why can't this routine be used with the other non-cannon Corsairs, Hellcats etc.?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Naturally 20mm AN M2 (designation of second version of US Hispano) would produce more recoil than "1,5 x" .50 AN M2. What makes the differece in the game is that planes with cannons in wings still have them synched, i.e. recoils of all of them cancel out each other perfectly. Its not a matter of F4U1C but of cannons - regardless of type of plane.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MAILMAN------:My examples are:
1. The P-51D-NA20 in which the guns are firing in pairs evidenced by the fact that they ceased firing in pairs. The nose does not yaw due to firing the guns. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im flying P-51D a lot recently and noticed that I can tell when one of my .50s is empty because I get yaw sway. That would oppose what you said about pairs, so I checked: kept firing until like 19th second and then switched to 4x slower time. P-51D does not have those .50s "paired":
http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/9753/5316nx.png (http://imageshack.us)

EDIT: Oh and P-51 does yaw a little bit even when 6, 4 or 2 .50 M2 are firing. IMHO effect of recoil on planes with wing mounted armament is overmodelled a lot!


If you are communicating with 1C I would recommend suggesting them to just use P-51D setup in F4F4, F6F and F4U as quick and easy fix of current bug.

MAILMAN------
03-10-2006, 03:34 PM
I stand corrected sir. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif I ran the test again and both the P-51D-20NA and the P-51D-5NT have the same firing order. I don't know why I missed it before but I did. So now it is proven that none of these aircraft have guns that are firing in pairs or sets. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

PO PM PI SI SM SO

2 3 5 6 4 1

P-51D-20NA & P-51D-5NT

They still seem closer running out in pairs than the other 6 x MG planes.

Kocur_
03-10-2006, 04:01 PM
That was D-20 and I just checked that D-5 does the same. I let it fire in normal time for about 19 seconds and then switch to the slowest. I guess it could be easily not noticed if one fired in normal time all the way.

stansdds
03-10-2006, 08:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Below is the order in which the .50 MG ran out of ammo:

1. Inboard starbard gun ran out of ammo. 400RPG
2. Middle Starbard gun ran out of ammo. 400RPG
3. Outboard Starbard gun ran out of ammo.375RPG
4. Inboard Port gun ran out of ammo. 400RPG
5. Outboard Port gun ran out of ammo. 375RPG
6. Middle Port gun ran out of ammo. 400RPG </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, so here's the bug: instead of putting faster-slower-slowest .50 in each wing, like it is in say, P-51D, they put the faster guns in starboard wing, and slower in port wing. Obviously a simple bug - worth sending to 1C. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just tested it and got the same results.

WWMaxGunz
03-10-2006, 11:49 PM
Sounds like somebody didn't have enough time to make the changes and set some links
wrong. The P-51 sequence looks thought out... I dunno why not back and forth side to
side but it works and gets more even coverage along the path of fire than before.
So now people are finding out what 1 does alone without 5 brothers jumping in...
unless the target obliges to wait what, 1/2 second?

When I practice gunnery offline, I make a track and go back to see just where my shots
went. Playback with arcade=1. When fire time comes up, cut to slo-mo and look through
the sights till it fires, freeze action, switch POV to target and swing the view so you
can see target and your plane both then let it slo-mo. It sometimes amazes me how many
shots go just over or just under. There should be less with the .50's but I've seen it
since the start when there weren't no .50's! Sometimes you just gotta hit the right
spot once or the same spot a few times. I just like to know where the shots are going.

stansdds
03-12-2006, 05:28 AM
A bump back to the top and any word from Oleg and company on fixing this issue?

blindpugh
03-12-2006, 07:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mence:
The recoil effect in this sim is WAY overdone. Some of the planes just bounce all over the place. This and the porked performance of many US planes has made this sim subpar. It was not, but it is now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>yeah p40 B for one nearly 100mph down on its max speed @ 5000ft +F4F-324mph @sealevel which you cant attain.Although I still like the sim Oleg-and wont mind spending the money for BoB

stansdds
03-14-2006, 04:16 AM
Ominous silence on this issue. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Tater-SW-
03-14-2006, 07:14 AM
As I said earlier, in a similar thread at simhq it was posted that in response to an email about this issue, oleg said that it was a "feature."

We all know that instead of training thei pilots in deflection shooting and having them make a high, quartering attack as their absolute standard firing pass, the USN said "the hell with it, just make the guns wildly inaccurate."

tater

Nimits
03-14-2006, 02:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stansdds:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Below is the order in which the .50 MG ran out of ammo:

1. Inboard starbard gun ran out of ammo. 400RPG
2. Middle Starbard gun ran out of ammo. 400RPG
3. Outboard Starbard gun ran out of ammo.375RPG
4. Inboard Port gun ran out of ammo. 400RPG
5. Outboard Port gun ran out of ammo. 375RPG
6. Middle Port gun ran out of ammo. 400RPG </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, so here's the bug: instead of putting faster-slower-slowest .50 in each wing, like it is in say, P-51D, they put the faster guns in starboard wing, and slower in port wing. Obviously a simple bug - worth sending to 1C. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just tested it and got the same results. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which they will hopefully fix in 4.05. I have never heard of assymetric recoil yawing an undamaged aircraft in any pilot account or aviation history. The US Navy pilots specifically trained for deflection shots, something that would have been impossible had their 'Cats yawed all over the place every time they fired.

Maybe Mailman's test's has brought the real bug with the USN planes (as opposed to any slight sway cause by one gun running out of ammo before the others that Maddox may have thought people were talking about) to Mr. Maddox's attention?

MAILMAN------
03-14-2006, 03:49 PM
I have sent two posts to the PF@1C.ru address. I sent the results of my first tests and an .ntrak of the guns firing and running out of ammo (forget which aircraft I used although I think it was one of the F4U). I sent a second email to correct an error regarding my testing of P-51D-20NA and the P-51D-5NT. My initial testing was flawed. I had stated that the NA version fired in pairs and the NT version did not. In fact both version fired the MG in the same order and rate which was not in pairs. I do believe that this was the only aircraft in the entire testing in which both outboard guns ran out of ammo first (although not at the same tim.) To date I have not received a response.

crazyivan1970
03-14-2006, 04:07 PM
Just FYI, 1C@PF.RU receives hundreds of e-mail per day. Do not expect them to answer to each one of them. They dont have people dedicated to that. Come on guys, you know that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Tater-SW-
03-14-2006, 08:20 PM
One such email was purportedly answered (mentioned at simhq) and the answer was that this was a feature and didn't need fixing.

tater

WWMaxGunz
03-14-2006, 09:12 PM
Ivan do you agree that by those fire time tests that there is a force imbalance?
It looks that simple to me.

And the ships those planes flew from have mechanics and armorers that fix things reported
needing fixing by the pilots.... wouldn't such an imbalance be found out and fixed in reality?

It's not like you can get random planes with different gun ROF mixes by chance in IL2.
They all come the same which for many is something that would not pass unchanged.

We don't see planes with the early manufacture mistakes that got corrected but this is okay?

I hope that is not what the supposed feature is about.

shinden1974
03-14-2006, 09:40 PM
I don't think there's anything more to this than a bug.

If every mk2 had a different rate of fire (coded to do so) than the only fair way to implement this would be random (and in all wing MG planes), in which case someone would see a yaw left and others a yaw right (in most wing MG planes). this is always the same (yaw right). Right now it's modelled as if one machine gun was malfunctioning on purpose...on USN planes only.

I seriously doubt that the force of desynched guns with a reasonable variation in ROF is capable of producing the effect on the corsair we see in any case, especially a repeatable one. this can only happen if one of the guns is damaged, or a factory defect...if this is a 'feature' it's not a very fair one.

I think Oleg probably misunderstood the meaning and gave a quick answer to what he thought was another issue. I honestly hope he gives it a second look.

Nimits
03-14-2006, 10:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
One such email was purportedly answered (mentioned at simhq) and the answer was that this was a feature and didn't need fixing.

tater </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm thinking (hoping) that he didn't clearly understand what you were talking about. I presume Maddox assumed you were referring to the yaw resulting from some guns running out of ammo before others, not the full blown problem with the USN planes we now have.

Tater-SW-
03-14-2006, 11:30 PM
Dunno about the other guy's email, but it seemed from that thread we were talking about the same thing, an instant 40 mil yaw whenever you pulled the trigger.

tater

Aaron_GT
03-15-2006, 02:38 AM
What might be nice (and I suppose this might be good for BoB but unlikely to be seen in PF) is the rate of fire for each gun being created on spawning the aircraft. This would fit nicely with the random failure aspect we are told we might get in BoB. It would be nice if the same ROFs were kept for the same aircraft in campaigns. But then I suppose the ultimate would be the ability to interact with the ground crew and try to get them to swap guns around if the ROFs are not how you want to. This might need a role playing aspect with you getting some 'beer points' to spend on the ground crew to get them to do things during a campaign with more 'beer points' to spend the higher your rank!

Aaron_GT
03-15-2006, 02:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Right now it's modelled as if one machine gun was malfunctioning on purpose...on USN planes only. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not just USN, but it seems the way the ROF to gun allocation on the Corsair and F4F makes things worse. It looks like it was done in haste to get the patch out and not spotted later. It might even have been in that order so it could be checked easily that the ROFs were behaving correctly with the intention to randomise it later and that last step wasn't done.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I seriously doubt that the force of desynched guns with a reasonable variation in ROF is capable of producing the effect on the corsair we see in any case, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd agree. It seems a bit overdone. The difference between a 20mm gun firing and not apparently caused the first cannon armed Spitfires in the Battle of Britain a problem when one jammed, but with 5 other guns firing in an F4F one not firing probably shouldn't make such a big difference.

Tater-SW-
03-15-2006, 08:08 AM
Maybe not just the USN, but only the USN planes have a substantial, instantly noticible yaw. I tried all the others, and even at gunsight FOV I don;t notice a problem with any other planes.

It was either an intentional slight on the USN planes, or they had a particular person do the USN planes who did all of them wrong. You have to admit it's a bit odd that it affects all USN planes, even the F2A and none of the other similarly armed planes have anything serious in the way of yaw---the shooting on the runway tests demonstrate this as the USAAF planes simply roll backwards instead of spinning.

tater

Nimits
03-15-2006, 12:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
Dunno about the other guy's email, but it seemed from that thread we were talking about the same thing, an instant 40 mil yaw whenever you pulled the trigger.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know that, and you know that, and most of us on the forum know that, I just think (hope) Oleg didn't realize that (English isn't his first language, after all) at the time he sent you the reply (since all the planes can show a little yaw under certain circumstances)

mortoma
03-15-2006, 01:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Just FYI, 1C@PF.RU receives hundreds of e-mail per day. Do not expect them to answer to each one of them. They dont have people dedicated to that. Come on guys, you know that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Wow, I feel priveleged in that case. Because I can't remember ever writing to that e-mail address and not have Oleg personally reply every time. He was very succinct and brief usually, ( a few words ) but by damned if he didn't write me back every time.
Perhaps I was just lucky??

mortoma
03-15-2006, 01:46 PM
By the way, I was flying the Brewster Mk. I in a Pacific mission the other night and noticed it has
bad yaw when firing wing guns too. Very bad and it seems like a gun is out on one side. I checked to see if they were both firing and they were. Anyone who e-mails 1C be sure to mention that plane too. Maybe we should test all planes with wing guns?? I'll try to test some tonight.

Kocur_
03-15-2006, 02:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mortoma:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Just FYI, 1C@PF.RU receives hundreds of e-mail per day. Do not expect them to answer to each one of them. They dont have people dedicated to that. Come on guys, you know that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Wow, I feel priveleged in that case. Because I can't remember ever writing to that e-mail address and not have Oleg personally reply every time. He was very succinct and brief usually, ( a few words ) but by damned if he didn't write me back every time.
Perhaps I was just lucky?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hm! I got answer too. Not that it was anything else that stating that everything I suggested was wrong - was perfectly right, based on blueprints, confirmed by RL pilots etc.

Nimits
03-15-2006, 04:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hm! I got answer too. Not that it was anything else that stating that everything I suggested was wrong - was perfectly right, based on blueprints, confirmed by RL pilots etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In reference to this problem, Kocur_, or something else?

Tater-SW-
03-15-2006, 04:59 PM
I tested the Brewsters, they yaw. basically there is a simple test to find out if a plane yaws when the guns are fired.

Test proceedure:

1. Ask this question: "Did the United States Navy buy this type of aircraft?"

If the answer is "yes" it will yaw when you fire the guns.

tater

VW-IceFire
03-15-2006, 05:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mortoma:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Just FYI, 1C@PF.RU receives hundreds of e-mail per day. Do not expect them to answer to each one of them. They dont have people dedicated to that. Come on guys, you know that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Wow, I feel priveleged in that case. Because I can't remember ever writing to that e-mail address and not have Oleg personally reply every time. He was very succinct and brief usually, ( a few words ) but by damned if he didn't write me back every time.
Perhaps I was just lucky?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
He has responded to me nearly every time as well. One time not, but the suggestion made it through and was implemented anyways. I am always sure to provide ample information and sources like in an academic paper.

Kocur_
03-15-2006, 10:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nimits:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hm! I got answer too. Not that it was anything else that stating that everything I suggested was wrong - was perfectly right, based on blueprints, confirmed by RL pilots etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In reference to this problem, Kocur_, or something else? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

P-47D10/22 and P-51B/C sighting view.

WWMaxGunz
03-16-2006, 12:02 AM
By specification the brakes on your car could be out of balance and pull to the side when
applied. Just by specifications, the range allowed for tightness. Just like the guns on
the wings.

Part of the job of the mechanic is to get the brakes close to each other when adjusting
as well as check tires and other parts of that system. He or someone test drives the car
and if it pulls to a side then it gets fixed.

Much more so the mechanics and armorers were expected to stay on top of aircraft performance
where they had time and parts at least. From writing of a Marine pilot at Guadalcanal I can
see that there was times there when more important things (IMO) were not gotten done and only
discovered by pilots before, during, or soon after takeoff. Planes crashing to me is more
important than uneven gun wear and moving guns around to address the yaw, first fix the parts
that allow the plane to stay flying. We have those for all these planes? It is like a USAAF
person made the decision how to 'randomize' the guns because back then one branch of the
services would report poorly on other branches ... the battle of the budget and pride.

Aaron_GT
03-17-2006, 06:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It was either an intentional slight on the USN planes, or they had a particular person do the USN planes who did all of them wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My money would be on the latter, otherwise you have to posit some reason why there would be a deliberate sleight against USN planes, and it doesn't make sense to do that. ****-up theory before conspiracy theory every time.

Tater-SW-
03-17-2006, 06:57 AM
I agree, aaron, those were just the only possible scenarios I could see. Still, it seems an odd way too have people do things there, a plane is a plane to them, right? Why have someone only dealing with USN planes, even the export Brewster that existed before PF.

tater

Aviar
03-17-2006, 03:41 PM
Was there no response from Oleg concerning the bug report about some guns running out of ammo before others?

Aviar

MAILMAN------
03-17-2006, 05:58 PM
No not yet.

WWMaxGunz
03-17-2006, 09:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aviar:
Was there no response from Oleg concerning the bug report about some guns running out of ammo before others?

Aviar </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean after umpteen pages on different fire rates of unsynchronized .50 cals and a huge
push for desynched fire based on that reality and then a change made you expect guns with
different fire rates and the same number of shots each to run out of ammo at the same time?

Aaron_GT
03-18-2006, 12:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Why have someone only dealing with USN planes, even the export Brewster that existed before PF. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Who knows! Maybe it was a simple thing to say in a project management meeting: You, do the 50s on the USAAF planes, You do the 50s on the USN planes.

Whatever the reason, it needs to be sorted out, though. Hopefully the bug report has been sent off and fingers crossed for the next patch.

stansdds
03-21-2006, 05:16 PM
And to the bottom slips this hot topic. No further official word other than "it's a feature"?

Tater-SW-
03-21-2006, 05:35 PM
Yeah, it's why the USN lost the air war in the PTO, silly.

tater

stansdds
03-22-2006, 04:20 AM
Must be why the Corsair and Hellcat sucked so bad and could only muster something like a 12 to 1 kill to loss ratio. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

R_Target
03-22-2006, 09:34 AM
Has everyone sent in ntrks to 1C? It seems sensible to present as much evidence from different users as possible. I sent a report a couple weeks ago, not really expecting a response, but just trying to draw their attention to the issue.

Aviar
03-22-2006, 04:49 PM
Tracks have been sent and Oleg has responded. I'm not sure if they reply to every single e-mail.

Aviar

stansdds
03-27-2006, 04:24 AM
Has anyone received a response other than "it's not a bug, it's a feature"?

luftluuver
03-27-2006, 06:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aviar:
Tracks have been sent and Oleg has responded. I'm not sure if they reply to every single e-mail.

Aviar </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Are you refering to this &gt;&gt; "it's not a bug, it's a feature" or are there later replies?

OldMan____
03-27-2006, 06:50 AM
If I had to guess I would guess the following.

When oleg introduced unsyc guns he probably unsynced pairs. For example. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Where 1 and 6 have a ROf 2 and 5 have another etc...

But it might be possible that the USN planes (that were all introduced on a different time frame form USAAF planes) have their weapons numerated in a different way. Something like
1 6 2 4 5 3.

That simple mistake could create all that mess. It was irrelevant when all gubs fired together, but now it is not.

Tater-SW-
03-27-2006, 07:30 AM
I believe the reply was actually to aviar that is wan't a bug. It's very clearly a bug, however.

tater

Aviar
03-27-2006, 10:17 AM
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...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif):

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

R_Target
03-27-2006, 10:43 AM
Well, let's hope that they've taken a closer look at what's going on.

lowfighter
03-27-2006, 12:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aviar:
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...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif):

-------------------------------------
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 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I can understand that if the guns mounted on wings of a CERTAIN plane have slightly different ROF you
can get an asymmetric recoil. But what has this with the desynchronisation? And if this effect is present on all planes with wing guns why is it that on the mentioned Ac the recoil is always to the left or to the right, while on others it's random and not cumulative? Also this effect shall be visible if you pull the trigger for a longer time. I can't imagine that a short burst of say two seconds is enough to have the magnitude of the ASYMMETRIC recoil we have with the mentioned AC. Am I wrong somewhere please?

luftluuver
03-27-2006, 12:41 PM
Sounds like a cop-out.

So according to OM:
guns = variable RoF
a/c = same performance

Lack of consistency, be sure.

All a/c of one model were not the same so why do they perform the same? Would make garbage of any game flight testing.

Why is that USAAF a/c don't pull while USN a/c do?

Why can't he come clean and admit 1C screwed up?

lowfighter
03-27-2006, 01:35 PM
I'm wondering in real life what would be the deviation from average ROF for a WWII airplane gun. Say it's 5%, then you have 5 bullets in 100 fired faster or slower than the average per second. What do you think will happen in this case?
Or perhaps is 10%? Poor engineers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

luftluuver
03-27-2006, 01:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lowfighter:
I'm wondering in real life what would be the deviation from average ROF for a WWII airplane gun. Say it's 5%, then you have 5 bullets in 100 fired faster or slower than the average per second. What do you think will happen in this case?
Or perhaps is 10%? Poor engineers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And what would be the odds they would all be on the same side? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

horseback
03-27-2006, 01:56 PM
Sometimes you get the impression that the 'corrections' to FMs are intended to punish those who documented the problem and lobbied for a fix rather than to address the actual problem, particularly when the problem already has the appearance of vindictiveness towards certain groups.

There's a definite air of "...see what you made me do?" around here a lot of the time.

cheers

horseback

MAILMAN------
03-27-2006, 04:22 PM
}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..."

Sorry Oleg ole buddy, but it does not happen to <span class="ev_code_RED">ALL</span> wing mounted guns. All four cannon of the F4U-1C commence firing at the same time and cease firing at the same time or appeared to at normal speed. So much for your feature.

VW-IceFire
03-27-2006, 06:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lowfighter:
I'm wondering in real life what would be the deviation from average ROF for a WWII airplane gun. Say it's 5%, then you have 5 bullets in 100 fired faster or slower than the average per second. What do you think will happen in this case?
Or perhaps is 10%? Poor engineers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The reason for the ROF difference is to appease all that wanted the tracers to be desyncronized (I thought it was a good idea). This was the only way apparently...

@luftluuver: Oleg is sometimes stubborn and proud. You need to convince him with a steady but gentle stream of solid, well reasoned, well supported information.

Tater-SW-
03-27-2006, 06:59 PM
Yeah, that argument is lame. It would be exactly the same if people asked for random variation between planes of the same type---like having slight differences in engine output for every plane spawned (this one has bad plugs on some cylinders, etc). Then we get it added, but every single plane from the Luftwaffe has exactly the same performance hit, they all have 5 bad plugs, where all the other planes in the game get 0-5 bad plugs at random.

This needs to be squashed.

tater

VW-IceFire
03-27-2006, 07:08 PM
Whats funny is that if we had a solid archive of what was on the forum about 3 and a half years ago we'd have the very same set of complaints about the P-47 of 1.0 and 1.01 patches. Oleg did eventually fix that....and then later fixed the rest of them by syncronizing the tracers and then everyoen thought it'd be better to desyncronize the tracers and so he did and now there is this problem again...but not on the P-47 as that was fixed and not on some of the other USAAF aircraft because those were fixed ahead of time as well.

But the USN aircraft...same problem cropped up years later.

Tater, I realize its rediculous...but like I said...you guys need to be gentle but firm and present things in a EXTREMELY well thought out way. You can't just send a message and say "Fix it". Doesn't work like that. Graphics, charts, diagrams, and formal essay style stuff is whats required. So it shows that you have a real point, have invested some time in the research, and are willing to go the extra mile to point it out and have it cleaned up.

I have on several occasions. Some results have been seen of my efforts...but I don't do this all the time as it takes quite a bit of effort to do. Seeing as this is something you definately want fixed...I would suggest the same approach. About all I can offer as advice.

WWMaxGunz
03-28-2006, 01:26 AM
Only data needed is to confirm the imbalance.

Then try and convince that if a pilot went out and saw this once that if he got back there
would be armorers and mechanics set to correct it.

It is not as random when all the planes of a type are the same and unchangeable.

Perfect balance is not needed. Whatever random should be within the middle half of distribution
'curve' (hey use two dice and you get a triangle) just because armorers and pilots would not
leave such a problem untouched.

Not every engine was running best performance then due to things like wear. Worn engines were
replaced as able. How much easier to move the guns around once pilots says the fire yaws the
plane entire? Would Soviets have left the guns as they were, even on one fighter? I think not.

lowfighter
03-28-2006, 01:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Only data needed is to confirm the imbalance.

Then try and convince that if a pilot went out and saw this once that if he got back there
would be armorers and mechanics set to correct it.

It is not as random when all the planes of a type are the same and unchangeable.

Perfect balance is not needed. Whatever random should be within the middle half of distribution
'curve' (hey use two dice and you get a triangle) just because armorers and pilots would not
leave such a problem untouched.

Not every engine was running best performance then due to things like wear. Worn engines were
replaced as able. How much easier to move the guns around once pilots says the fire yaws the
plane entire? Would Soviets have left the guns as they were, even on one fighter? I think not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice argument! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

luftluuver
03-28-2006, 05:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
@luftluuver: Oleg is sometimes stubborn and proud. You need to convince him with a steady but gentle stream of solid, well reasoned, well supported information. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With the education I understand he has, it should not take a gentle stream of solid, well reasoned, well supported information to have this obvious bug fixed. Variation in a/c performance is not modelled, so why is it modelled for American guns?

So who is a math whiz? Should not be to hard (imo) to work out how much force differential is required to cause this slewing. As it is now, it is like one side has cannons and the other side has mgs.

For what it is worth, I have read that 'old, well used' .50s could loose 100 rpm of RoF. That is ~1.7 rps. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

"its not a bug. Its a feature" is a pure lame excuse.

lowfighter
03-28-2006, 05:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Should not be to hard (imo) to work out how much force differential is required to cause this slewing. As it is now, it is like one side has cannons and the other side has mgs.

For what it is worth, I have read that 'old, well used' .50s could loose 100 rpm of RoF. That is ~1.7 rps. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

"its not a bug. Its a feature" is a pure lame excuse. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can try. For a very rough calculation I need also:
mass of one bullet
velocity of one bullet
mass of airplane
length of airplane
length of wings

Can someone provide this info?

luftluuver
03-28-2006, 05:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lowfighter:
I can try. For a very rough calculation I need also:
mass of one bullet <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">.10614lb/50g</span>
velocity of one bullet <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">2900f/s</span>
mass of airplane
length of airplane
length of wings

Can someone provide this info? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kocur_
03-28-2006, 07:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lowfighter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Should not be to hard (imo) to work out how much force differential is required to cause this slewing. As it is now, it is like one side has cannons and the other side has mgs.

For what it is worth, I have read that 'old, well used' .50s could loose 100 rpm of RoF. That is ~1.7 rps. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

"its not a bug. Its a feature" is a pure lame excuse. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can try. For a very rough calculation I need also:
mass of one bullet
velocity of one bullet
mass of airplane
length of airplane
length of wings

Can someone provide this info? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

M2 AP: 46g, MV=860m/s, averagely 800rpm.

But I really dont think, that such a rough calculation can be useful. Not only you need distance between barrel and longitidinal axis of the plane, but also you need to establish where would be located imaginary pivot the plane or its longitudinal axis would be rotated around. I wont even mention need to establish value of strenght (depending on speed) acting on the plane via vertical stabiliser, against which force of recoil would push.

lowfighter
03-28-2006, 07:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lowfighter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Should not be to hard (imo) to work out how much force differential is required to cause this slewing. As it is now, it is like one side has cannons and the other side has mgs.

For what it is worth, I have read that 'old, well used' .50s could loose 100 rpm of RoF. That is ~1.7 rps. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

"its not a bug. Its a feature" is a pure lame excuse. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can try. For a very rough calculation I need also:
mass of one bullet
velocity of one bullet
mass of airplane
length of airplane
length of wings

Can someone provide this info? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

M2 AP: 46g, MV=860m/s, averagely 800rpm.

But I really dont think, that such a rough calculation can be useful. Not only you need distance between barrel and longitidinal axis of the plane, but also you need to establish where would be located imaginary pivot the plane or its longitudinal axis would be rotated around. I wont even mention need to establish value of strenght (depending on speed) acting on the plane via vertical stabiliser, against which force of recoil would push. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The model I think is very rough, just a rigid body composed of two rods at right angles, one rod is the AC body the other one is representing the wings. The body can freely rotate around an axis. There's no friction, no drag and thrust here 'simulated'. The next is to calculate for different conditions the torque due to ROF differences and get the resulting angular rotation of the body. This is not only a VERY simple model but I believe that the results I'll get will be much favorable to big asymmetric recoil than in real life (exactly what you said about the OPOSING forces present besides the recoil) . So then IF I get a considerably smaller asymetric recoil than in game it proves the point. What I mean by conditions: see what it happens if only the left wing guns are shooting. See what happens if there's a 10% ROF bias on the left. See what if 5% etc. See what happens with 2s 5s 10s of fire.
IF I get results in the same range as the game, than the model has to be refined.
Still need the AC mass, length, length of the wing. And the wings mass would be good to know.


edit: I got the mass length and wing span for F6F-5. Mass of wings I guess is hard to find...

Tater-SW-
03-28-2006, 08:29 AM
This problem is self-evidently wrong for anyone with the least bit of physics training.

tater

luftluuver
03-28-2006, 09:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
This problem is self-evidently wrong for anyone with the least bit of physics training.

tater </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Be sure, if it was a feature http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif than the effect should be totally random, which it is most definately NOT.


Kocur, the a/c pivot when sitting on the ground. No need to have the a/c flying. Which brings up another question, were 6 50s enough to push an a/c backwards in RL?


lowfighter, I don't think the calculations have to be of engineering quality, just enough to illustrate that there is a problem. The middle gun on the F6F is ~2.5m from the centre line. The spread from gun 1 to gun 3 is ~.4m. The point of rotation can be an approx location (say the front of the windshield).

If you need a F6F drawing, http://www.airwar.ru/other/draw/f6f5.html

For the F4U, http://www.airwar.ru/other/draw/f4ucorsairajp.html

lowfighter
03-28-2006, 10:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
This problem is self-evidently wrong for anyone with the least bit of physics training.

tater </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Be sure, if it was a feature http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif than the effect should be totally random, which it is most definately NOT.


Kocur, the a/c pivot when sitting on the ground. No need to have the a/c flying. Which brings up another question, were 6 50s enough to push an a/c backwards in RL?


lowfighter, I don't think the calculations have to be of engineering quality, just enough to illustrate that there is a problem. The middle gun on the F6F is ~2.5m from the centre line. The spread from gun 1 to gun 3 is ~.4m. The point of rotation can be an approx location (say the front of the windshield).

If you need a F6F drawing, http://www.airwar.ru/other/draw/f6f5.html

For the F4U, http://www.airwar.ru/other/draw/f4ucorsairajp.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks luftluuver and Kocur for info! Tomorrow I'll come with the results.

It would be useful if someone which can use devicelink with devicelink could come with some game plots for of the deviation angle versus time. Because we need to compare with calculus.

Kocur_
03-28-2006, 11:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Kocur, the a/c pivot when sitting on the ground. No need to have the a/c flying. Which brings up another question, were 6 50s enough to push an a/c backwards in RL? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Naturally, if brakes were not on those M2s would push the plane backwards - given enough time.

What I would be so much interested in is seeing an engineer calculating yawing caused by, say single M2 firing in one wing or equivalents of that, i.e. one-more M2 firing in one wing than in the other. For I BELIVE that effect of recoil of wing guns, which results in yawing is overmodelled.
Such a calculation would have to include not only 'static' model of plane with non-equal number of guns firing in each wing, but also forces acting on vertical stab at various speeds.


But that is in general. In particular case of USN fighters it is self evident, that someone placed those M2s (which now exist in at least 6 'models', each with slightly different ROF - and GOOD) in sequence from fasterst to slowest, starting from starboard external station. Doing that was most obviously a mistake, and all it takes to correct it is to copy&paste P-51 (C and D respectively) guns modelling, with proper for USN fighters ammo loadout naturally.
I dont think there is anything to calculate in that particular case. As much as it is intersting per se, doing so might seem like rationalization of an obvious mistake.

WWMaxGunz
03-28-2006, 12:05 PM
Everyone who thinks that Oleg fills in the tables please post something extra stupid.

The ROF's I saw in the screenshot sequence are not purely low to high but they are arranged
very much out of balance. One test flight and in real it would be sidelined to be fixed.

Imagine a whole squadron of planes with that same problem and no way to rearrange the guns.
Sorry please but in the whole time I buy and play at this, this is the first good argument
against keeping user mods out. What kind of user would make this? I can think of a few
who would go halfway so far at most to 'other side' planes and hope to get away with it.
What they would more likely do is cut bullet velocity or mass or both just slightly to fit
some small section of a small part of a report while disregarding 20x opposing information.

I really doubt that Oleg will let this situation stand as it is not to IL2 standards at all.

IF you are crying 'why isn't anything done' or the old bias line then for you:

Give It Time, Folks! There won't be a change until next, perhaps last patch that hopefully
has no such mistakes. There is no reason for making noise more and more until you get your
way regardless of what is right. There is a whole list of right things being done for sure
so have some compassion for the workers. Making constant noise until you are cared for is
the way of spoiled children and babies throwing tantrums, have to be fed and cleaned first.
Babies can be excused, they know nothing of preparing the bottle but then they don't type
very well. What does that leave?

Viper2005_
03-28-2006, 01:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Which brings up another question, were 6 50s enough to push an a/c backwards in RL? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Way back in the first few pages of this thread I calculated the recoil of the M2 at about 170 lbf.

That was just a pretty rough calculation at 600 rpm.

But that means that 6 of the things would put out about 1000 lbf, so yes, the recoil would certainly be sufficient to move the aeroplane if the brakes weren't applied.

luftluuver
03-28-2006, 01:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Way back in the first few pages of this thread I calculated the recoil of the M2 at about 170 lbf.

That was just a pretty rough calculation at 600 rpm.

But that means that 6 of the things would put out about 1000 lbf, so yes, the recoil would certainly be sufficient to move the aeroplane if the brakes weren't applied. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It is a vector thrust as the force applied is not horizontal.

Viper2005_
03-28-2006, 03:28 PM
Well yes, but I would have thought it obvious by inspection that the horizontal component would be considerable given that the ground angle of most WWII fighters is/was substantially less than 30 degrees...

WWMaxGunz
03-28-2006, 11:09 PM
And at 30 degrees the horizontal component is 86.6666~ percent of the total....
More with lower angle.

Anyone want to figure the rolling friction of European vs African Swallow with coconuts?
Because the discussion gets that silly considering the force is about imbalance of recoils
with some guns taking just how many seconds longer to empty over how many shots?

lowfighter
03-29-2006, 01:53 AM
A plot for the "2 rods model"

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/adonisl/recoil.jpg


mb=mass off the main body
mw=mass of wings;
lb=length of AC
lw=wings span;
I inertia moment
mr=mas of a bullet; vr=speed of a bullet;
nr=no.of rounds shot in time dt
ma=7000; mb=2/3*ma;mw=1/3*ma;
lb=10;lw=13;
I=mb*lb^2/9+mw*lw^2/12;
torque=lw/4*d(mr*vr*nr)/dt=13/4*50*10^(-3)*860*800/60

imbalance=1,0.5 or0.1
deviation angle=3*imbalance*(torque/I)*(t^2/2)*(180/pi);

MAILMAN------
03-29-2006, 04:42 PM
[/QUOTE]
I can try. For a very rough calculation I need also:
mass of one bullet
velocity of one bullet
mass of airplane
length of airplane
length of wings

Can someone provide this info?[/QUOTE]

Here is a site with some information:

http://www.simhq.com/_air/acc_library.html


If you scroll down to:

Air To Air Gunnery Revisited - Guns, Gunsights, and Convergence

Where there are charts listing the various machine gun and cannon - muzzle velocities, bullet weights, rounds per minute, etc. Even what appears to be an actual boresighting tool for a P-38 for its cannon and mg. Hope this is what you are looking for.

MAILMAN------
03-29-2006, 11:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
One, I don't care what is best in the game, I want to fly my plane with a historical setting, so I do. I might have lower scores than folks who game the convergance, but that's life. they didn;t get custom converance in RL, so I don't.

Two, 304.81m rounds to 305m. That's what the ~305 means "about" 305m. You cannot use decimals in the conv setting, so it's either off by 0.81m or off by 0.19m. I chose the latter.

Regardless the USN 50 cals are totally FUBAR right now, they need fixing.

tater </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Umm you can use decimals. You just can't use the decimal point on the number pad of the keyboard. My convergence point is set for 274.32 = 300 YARDS = 900 FEET.

I have a picture of a F4U-1 No. 5 of VMF-213 being boresighted using and apparatus constructed out of coconut logs. The caption states: "Boresighting was a frequent topic of conversation among Corsair pilots, as the procedure needed to be carried out regularly because the guns moved slightly in their mounts each time they were fired. The distance at which the .50s were boresighted varied from unit to unit, the usual distance being around 900 feet." USMC "Corsair Aces of World War II" by Mark Styling.

Talking about .50s in the P51B & D "Provided , therefore, that an American pilot closed with the German fighter to the average of 300-400 yards, and his gunnery was up to the mark, the fact that the enemy had more fire power was not a great advantage." "Mustang Aces of the Eighth Air Force" by Jerry Scutts.

lowfighter
03-30-2006, 03:13 AM
Hi there. I wanted to see how different wil be the results if I change the mass distribution over the plane length. The blue curve is with uniform distribution of mass, the red one with linear distribution, I think a bit closer to the real life. In the red case the mass/(length unit) is increasing linearly from tail to prop.
As you see the differences between the two are quite small. I assumed a 10% imbalance: that is each gun on let's say the left wing has a ROF bigger by 10% than the corresponding gun on the right wing. Of course this is just for fun http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
The deviation is pretty small, less than 2 degree for a 3s fire burst. In real life it should be even smaller than that because of the combined action of drag and thrust.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/adonisl/recoil2.jpg

luftluuver
03-30-2006, 04:46 AM
Nice work lowfighter.

So, it looks like this yawing from different RoFs is <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">BUSTED</span>, at least with regard to this game.

lowfighter
03-30-2006, 07:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:

So, it looks like this yawing from different RoFs is <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">BUSTED</span>, at least with regard to this game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sure they will correct it, the thing contradicts simple logic (no need of physics), probably just a
programmer mistake... I was just curious how big the effect can be...
Cheers!

Tater-SW-
03-30-2006, 08:38 AM
I'd agree that it would get corrected if the only word we had from Oleg wasn't "it's a feature."

tater

Tater-SW-
03-30-2006, 08:45 AM
I never knew I could use a decimal convergance. I'll have to try. I tried before once, and it didn;t work. odd, because I virtually never use the keypad at all, I expect that I used the normal . under the &gt;, but maybe I did use the keypad. I suppose I first should have tried to just edit it in a config file.

USMC would be more likely to vary because they had fewer issues with sharing planes given the fact they had "inifintie" room at the air strip. On a CV, planes got spotted where they got spotted, and major shifting was a huge pain, so if you were set to fly CAP you flew one of the planes spotted for TO, even if it wasn't your preferred plane.

tater

lowfighter
03-31-2006, 01:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
I'd agree that it would get corrected if the only word we had from Oleg wasn't "it's a feature."

tater </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It IS a feature, just it need to be corrected as magnitude (should be smaller) and manifestation (should be random). So I'm confident.
Cheers!

WWMaxGunz
03-31-2006, 01:22 AM
It is random. Just not evenly so. Given aircraft maintenance is not a random chance working
and pilots do submit gig lists the arrangement should be deliberately more even is all.

Features like this one should include gear doors not staying open, and canopies, bad work
fits of parts from factories and other mistakes UNFIXED. Unfortunate that then ALL of one
model P-51, and early LaGG's as well as other planes would be danger to fly for the pilots.

But since those corrected defects are not present then correctable order of guns should too.
Or am I dreaming?

Tater-SW-
03-31-2006, 09:04 AM
It's not random within a given type at all. For a given type is is always exactly the same. Random would require it to be random for each individual plane, and that is rather too much to ask, I imagine.

So it needs to be balanced. If this yaw were to exist for 50s, it should exit for every single type of gun in game. Imagine a plane with big wing canon and asymetric ROFs, it'd make the 40 mil yaw on the F4F seem like nothing.

tater

luftluuver
03-31-2006, 10:45 AM
Exactly Tater.

How can the 87G hit anything with the recoil the 37mm would have? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

What about the Il-2 with the big cannons? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

A 190A /R2 with the dual cannon gondolas would rotate 90 degreese when fired. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

lowfighter
03-31-2006, 12:29 PM
Guys I bet on 20 boxes of Killkenny that it will be fixed! Deal?

luftluuver
03-31-2006, 03:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lowfighter:
Guys I bet on 20 boxes of Killkenny that it will be fixed! Deal? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Want to bet that there will be no retraction of the "it is a feature, not a bug" statement. Will see, 'do to the whinning......'.

VW-IceFire
03-31-2006, 09:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
@luftluuver: Oleg is sometimes stubborn and proud. You need to convince him with a steady but gentle stream of solid, well reasoned, well supported information. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With the education I understand he has, it should not take a gentle stream of solid, well reasoned, well supported information to have this obvious bug fixed. Variation in a/c performance is not modelled, so why is it modelled for American guns?

"its not a bug. Its a feature" is a pure lame excuse. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't disagree with you but please understand one vital thing:

The visual desyncronized tracers...the difference between 4.02 and 4.03/4.04 is because they changed the fire rate of the machine guns...not because they changed the tracer pattern or belting order. The rate of fire produces the effect...which exposes this problem ...which has caused this thread.

All of that aside...I do agree. But as I understand it the way to have this effect is to slightly modify the fire rates (it looks great and is very effective in combat) the problem is a few USN fighters with a bad ordering and excessive yaw caused by machine guns out of order in terms of their fire rates balanced across the aircraft.

Tater-SW-
03-31-2006, 11:50 PM
Not a "few" USN fighters ALL of them, and ONLY USN fighters (inc. export models). If it ever had blue paint on it, it is broken, otherwise it's fine.

tater

stansdds
04-01-2006, 04:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
Not a "few" USN fighters ALL of them, and ONLY USN fighters (inc. export models). If it ever had blue paint on it, it is broken, otherwise it's fine.

tater </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tater is correct, this "feature" only affects the USN/USMC aircraft. Aircraft of all other forces do not have excessive yaw to one side during firing. A simple solution to this problem would be to have the outboard guns firing at 550 rpm, center guns at 600, and inboard guns at 650 rpm. Tracers will appear desynched and the recoil forces would be balanced. Now the proper way to desynch them would be to have all the guns firing at nearly the same rate, but change the tracer position in the ammo belts.

|CoB|_Spectre
04-01-2006, 05:47 AM
With the announcement of the three paid add-ons to be released, judging from the patch order and version numbers cited, I think it's safe to say we will not see this issue fixed as a patch. There's always some FM/DM tinkering that comes with any add-on or patch, but it looks like the thrust of the add-on content will be in releasing VVS aircraft, some additional objects, skins, movie clips and offline campaigns. Will the USN gun induced yaw ever be addressed? You can lay down your money and find out or wait and see what's reported by someone who has. Due to comments made in the original Grumman debacle, it appears we've got all the U.S. aircraft we're ever gonna get, so we may have to live with such as we have now.

VW-IceFire
04-01-2006, 06:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
Not a "few" USN fighters ALL of them, and ONLY USN fighters (inc. export models). If it ever had blue paint on it, it is broken, otherwise it's fine.

tater </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I was under the impression that the F4F-3 didn't have the problem and neither did the Corsair Mark I, Mark II, or Mark IV. Mistaken?

Doesn't really matter.

Has anyone sent in a bug report? If nobody has...I can put something together but that will take time as I need a new video card (its broken down in the last few days) and some time to put together adequate charts and information.

R_Target
04-01-2006, 11:50 AM
F4F-3 has the problem too. As well as the FM-2, all British Corsairs, F2A2, Buffalo Mk I, and B-239.

Nimits
04-01-2006, 12:10 PM
And the F6F. It's slightly less pronounced, and yaws the nose to the left, but it's still more than enough to make precision aiming near impossible.

My test for this is to set up the aircraft on the deck of a static carrier, remove chalks, and then hold done the trigger till ammo is used up, and noted the maximum yaw (until ammo started running out on one side and the plane starts to swing back the other direction). Doing these test on a representative selection of aircraft, I found:

The F4F-3, F4F-4, FM-2 F4U1-A, and Corsair Mk II all yaw about 90 degrees to the right till the ammo begins top run out, then swing back to about 45 degrees off centerline. These are obviously the worse affected.

The F6F-5 yaws about 70-80 degrees to the right, then swings back to about 30-40 degrees off centerline. It is slightly better than the F4F/F4U, but only slightly.

The P-40E yaws about 50 degrees to the left, then swings back to about 10 degrees left of centerline. This one is boderline, but noticable.

The P-51B yaws about 30-40 degress right, then swings back to about 5-10 degrees right of centerline. Though noticable if you are paying attention, it does not seem to appreciably affect gunnery when actually flying. Long bursts at medium to long ranges will swing the guns off target, but when using short bursts, the effect, in my experiance, is negligible.

The P-51DNA-20 does not noticably swing at all until its outboard guns run out of ammo, then swings about 30 degrees to the left of centerline, and then swings partway back to about 10 degrees left of centerline as its inboard guns run dry. The P-51DNA-20 performs as it should in flight, until the outboard guns run out. At that point, it experiances a gun-induced yaw nearly as bad as the other aircraft (actually, most of the US aircraft experiance a pronounced yaw to one side or the other as guns begin to run dry).

The P-47D rolls almost straight back and does not yaw more than 5 degress off centerline in either direction throughout its whole firing time. Gunnery in the P-47D is pretty much as it should be.

WWMaxGunz
04-01-2006, 02:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nimits:
The F4F-3, F4F-4, FM-2 F4U1-A, and Corsair Mk II all yaw about 90 degrees to the right till the ammo begins top run out, then swing back to about 45 degrees off centerline. These are obviously the worse affected.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me get this right. Those planes swing totally SIDEWAYS when firing?

Nimits
04-01-2006, 02:49 PM
IF SITTING on a carrier deck, engine OFF, chalks OUT, and the trigger is HELD DOWN till ammo runs out, asymmetric recoil will swing them 90 degrees.

In the air, obviously, they don't swing that far, but the nose still kicks over way to much for effective shooting.

Frankly, this needs to be fixed, even if the only way is to go back to the symmteric tracers.

Though, considering the P-47 doesn't yaw much when firing, you'd think they could work the same magic for the rest of the de-synched planes. It still seems this is just a careless bug, and one that can (and hopefully will) be fixed.

VW-IceFire
04-01-2006, 03:23 PM
Have we tested some other aircraft to benchmark this? Say a Hurricane IIB, a La-7 and a FW190?

Nimits
04-01-2006, 06:37 PM
The Hurricaine IIb does yaw about 70-80 degrees to the right in the carrier deck test. Howver, in flight, I have never noticed any gun induced yawing.

The FW-190A-8 rolls straight back, along with the LA-5F, LA-7 (as one would expect with nose mounted MGs).

R_Target
04-01-2006, 09:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nimits:
The Hurricaine IIb does yaw about 70-80 degrees to the right in the carrier deck test. Howver, in flight, I have never noticed any gun induced yawing.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ditto on that one. Just did a QMB in a MkIIb. She's a straight shooter.

Tater-SW-
04-01-2006, 11:22 PM
I tried a large selection of USAAF planes on the gorund, and they roll straight back, unlike the USN planes which spin in circles.

tater

VW-IceFire
04-02-2006, 08:22 AM
Any other types that anyone can think of with largely wing mounted machine guns? I think we need to indicate a large variety of types with similar outfittings that do not behave in this particular way and then use that to compare and contrast a few types (the USN birds as it were) that do have the problem. That way it does appear like a bug...either those have to sway or the USN have to not by basic logic.

GSNei
04-02-2006, 07:14 PM
Well - It goes away if you turn off realistic gunnery - too big of a cheat obviously - but begs the question "realistic gunnery", according to who? Kind of makes that toggle completely subjective.

MAILMAN------
04-03-2006, 08:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
Not a "few" USN fighters ALL of them, and ONLY USN fighters (inc. export models). If it ever had blue paint on it, it is broken, otherwise it's fine.

tater </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I was under the impression that the F4F-3 didn't have the problem and neither did the Corsair Mark I, Mark II, or Mark IV. Mistaken?

Doesn't really matter.

Has anyone sent in a bug report? If nobody has...I can put something together but that will take time as I need a new video card (its broken down in the last few days) and some time to put together adequate charts and information. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I have sent in a bug report some time ago, towards the beginning of this thread, with a list of each aircraft in question and numbering the order in which each gun stopped firing. In some instances all the guns in one wing were empty while two guns still fired on the other wing.

MAILMAN------
04-03-2006, 08:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
I tried a large selection of USAAF planes on the gorund, and they roll straight back, unlike the USN planes which spin in circles.

tater </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just did a test while in an online server. I was on the ground with the field modified P40-m-105 and I held the trigger down on the taxiway until it ran out of ammo. I rolled backwards in a counter clockwise circle until the port guns ran out of ammo.

lowfighter
04-04-2006, 02:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MAILMAN------:
In some instances all the guns in one wing were empty while two guns still fired on the other wing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

MAILMAN can you estimate how long after the 2 guns were still firing? Because then we can perhaps estimate the ROF difference between the guns.

R_Target
04-11-2006, 04:58 PM
Any news? Still an issue.

Nimits
04-11-2006, 05:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Still an issue. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah, I tried wishing it away, but that didn't work.

I'm really thinking Oleg is aware of this (if as many people have sent in bug reports as have claimed, or if he has had the time to glance at the "Ready Room" in the last week or two). If, as many suspect, its merely an error of "typing" the values into the guns in the wrong order, it should hopefully be fixed in v4.05m (or whatever the next patch is).

R_Target
04-11-2006, 06:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nimits:
I'm really thinking Oleg is aware of this (if as many people have sent in bug reports as have claimed, or if he has had the time to glance at the "Ready Room" in the last week or two). If, as many suspect, its merely an error of "typing" the values into the guns in the wrong order, it should hopefully be fixed in v4.05m (or whatever the next patch is). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Roger that. I can wait. Pe-2 will be out soon enough. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

blindpugh
04-12-2006, 07:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
I'd add that any effect of asymetry in firing should be apparent from long bursts, not short bursts.

Time=0 all 6 guns are chambered.

Time=0.5 seconds into burst each gun has fired ~5 rounds, tiny variations in ROF spread them out a little, but theree is no "pattern" of guns throwing more or less weight of fire that is meaningful. One gun fires 600 RPM has shot 5 rounds, another on the extreme other side of the wing fires at 750 rpm and has fired 6 rounds in the same time period. That's the maximum effect 1 round in a short burst. 2 rounds in a 1 sec burst. A 0.50 cal round weighs ~45 grams, do the math. mv(bullet)=45. MV(F4F @360kph)=3600*100=360,000. Huge recoil, yeah.

Time=5 seconds. 50 RPG or so are gone. You might begine to see that the no4 and no6 guns are firing more slowly, resulting in less recoil on that side of the plane, inducing a yaw. An effect that requires time to develope.

tater </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry old boy but a .50 cal. round weighs in at 1.6 ozs=62.5grams just helps your case a bit.

Kocur_
04-12-2006, 07:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by blindpugh:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
I'd add that any effect of asymetry in firing should be apparent from long bursts, not short bursts.

Time=0 all 6 guns are chambered.

Time=0.5 seconds into burst each gun has fired ~5 rounds, tiny variations in ROF spread them out a little, but theree is no "pattern" of guns throwing more or less weight of fire that is meaningful. One gun fires 600 RPM has shot 5 rounds, another on the extreme other side of the wing fires at 750 rpm and has fired 6 rounds in the same time period. That's the maximum effect 1 round in a short burst. 2 rounds in a 1 sec burst. A 0.50 cal round weighs ~45 grams, do the math. mv(bullet)=45. MV(F4F @360kph)=3600*100=360,000. Huge recoil, yeah.

Time=5 seconds. 50 RPG or so are gone. You might begine to see that the no4 and no6 guns are firing more slowly, resulting in less recoil on that side of the plane, inducing a yaw. An effect that requires time to develope.

tater </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry old boy but a .50 cal. round weighs in at 1.6 ozs </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

M2 AP projectile weights 1,6 oz x 28,35gram = about 45,36grams indeed (officially standarised at 706,7grains i.e. 45,8grams). Why sorry http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif?

lowfighter
04-12-2006, 11:30 AM
Anyone has some idea what is the spread of ROF for these guns? 20%, 10%, 5%?

Redbasterd_FOG
04-12-2006, 12:10 PM
Boy listening to you guys has brought me to the conclusion that you all must have a heck of a lot of time on your hands. Oh and by the way in the time you guys were bickering about recoil yaw I just went out and bagged 10 enemy aircraft in my f4u lol. see ya up there

Tater-SW-
04-12-2006, 12:28 PM
I haven't flown in weeks. I noticed the error the every first hop I took. Any of us are capable of working around it, I shoot close enough the yaw only changes where I hit the target, not IF I hit. That's not the point, I shouldn't have to fly an intentionally crippled aircraft.

If you have no interest in fixing what is obviously broken in game, perhaps you should bother to read bug posts in a forum dedicated to airing bug posts.


tater

R_Target
04-28-2006, 08:11 AM
No change in 4.05m.

GR142_Astro
04-28-2006, 10:51 AM
Man, getting US aircraft corrected takes an act from the Pope around here. Shame.

Nimits
04-28-2006, 05:22 PM
Evidently they did no flight model work at all, excepting of course the Pe-2/Pe-3, for 4.05m. Here's hoping they fix this (and the AI energy surge) in 4.06 . . .

shinden1974
04-28-2006, 06:22 PM
Yeah...really couldn't expect much considering this add-on has been ready as-is probably before 4.04m came out. I hope they plan a patch or a fix along with the il-10 add-on

Nimits
04-30-2006, 11:16 PM
Ditto that. The 'Cats and Corsair are broken at the moment, in a basic way no other plane has ever been broken in this sim (at least not for more than one patch). I really, really, hope Maddox get's around to fixing this in the next patch or add-on, even if it has to be done at the expense of the desynched .50 cals (though preferably we can have both 'Cats that do not swing when fired and desynched .50 cals.)

lowfighter
06-14-2006, 10:06 AM
So it looks it has been fixed! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

scroll down to Bird-Brain post:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/8711051254/p/2

joeap
06-14-2006, 01:00 PM
It is fixed. THANK YOU OLEG.

|CoB|_Spectre
06-14-2006, 04:19 PM
This is all very confusing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif We've got posts saying 4.05 did not fix it , we've posts saying 4.05 did fix it!

Aviar
06-14-2006, 11:11 PM
I just did a quick test of the four planes that were sent to Oleg in the bug report:

F6F-3 Late: Pulls Left
F6F-5: Pulls Left

F4F-3: Pulls Right
F4F-4: Pulls Right

I compared the 4.04 version to the 4.05 version. Personally, I don't see any difference at all.

Funny thing, when I first saw the post above, I immediately went into the version I had loaded at the time (4.05m) and it seemed as though the pulling problem had been lessened, although not totally fixed. I was going to estimate about 50%.

Unfortunately, when I switched back to 4.04m, it was clear that both versions exhibited the same amount of pulling. I think that because I rarely fly these planes anymore, I had a skewed memory of the pulling effect.

For some reason, I remembered the problem as being worse, so when I started testing in 4.05m, I thought that the pulling had been lessened. When I went back to 4.04m, I was surprised that both versions looked the same.

I suppose the method of testing can also come into play, as well as individual perception. In any event, everyone can judge for themselves.

Aviar

Aviar
06-15-2006, 12:37 PM
Some additional information. If you look at the thread where bird_brain claimed this 'problem' was fixed in 4.05, you will see that he has now posted otherwise.

Just a little bit of advise for when you see posts about new 'problems' or 'problems fixed', ESPECIALLY right after a new patch\addon has been released: Always take these reports with a grain of salt and try and check\test for yourself if possible.

Aviar

bird_brain
06-15-2006, 01:23 PM
I was interested to see this thread after it was linked to the one I posted. It took quite a while to read though! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

When I flew the Hellcat for the 1st time after installing Pe-2 2 days ago, I was surprised at the "percieved" difference in the recoil induced yaw. I have spent the last day doing some testing and basically found out all the stuff you guys have already posted. I have also found out something additional.

I have tested & measured the gun induced yaw <span class="ev_code_GREEN">in flight</span> and it is less now in 4.05m than it was in 4.04m. That is what led me to mistakenly think the recoil yaw effect had been fixed. The simple static test of firing all guns on the ground demonstrates the source of the problem, but it does not show why it is a little better now.

It may be that Oleg read your bug reports and attempted a band-aid solution with an increase in lateral stability, but it has not changed the assymetrical firing rated from the guns. The yaw seems to decrease as forward speed increases, but I have not got any accurate results on that so far.

What really aggravates me is the nose snapping to the left or right by about 4 mils every time I pull the trigger or release it. Some people may not care about accurate shooting, but going to all the trouble of lining up a shot & then missing because the plane misbehaves makes me want to punch my flight mechanic right in the snout. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Has anyone sent a bug report since installing the Pe-2 add on? With the obvious and easily documented difference in yaw rate from "F" fighters & "P" fighters it would seem hard to ignore, regardless of how many people try to change the subject, dilute the issue, or overlook the obvious.

I would just like to have a straight shooting plane before I release my VF9 Wildcat/Hellcat campaign (which is done BTW) . I would be happy to help compile some measurable facts for Oleg if he does not have them already.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aviar:
... Always take these reports with a grain of salt and try and check\test for yourself if possible. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Good point, that's the way I look at it too. I will continue to test until I can measure the results one way or another, but I think we all know that at best it is only better, not fixed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Aviar
06-15-2006, 01:58 PM
bird_brain,

I posted earlier that I too originally thought that the recoil effects were 'reduced' in 4.05, but after more testing I came to the conclusion that it seemed basically the same in 4.04m and 4.05m.

Although I would be interested to see how you "...tested & MEASURED the gun induced yaw...".

In the end, I think most will agree that the problem still exists, reduced or not.

As far as sending another bug report, it could not hurt. Obviously, Oleg has not considered this enough of a 'problem' to warrant any kind of fix.

Aviar

shinden1974
06-15-2006, 02:46 PM
I thought it was fixed too, but on further examination...no, just reduced. I really hate this 'feature', dogfights are not a problem, but aimed shots at bombers is silly with the constant yaw effect. Sorry about helping to spread this disinformation.

|CoB|_Spectre
06-15-2006, 02:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shinden1974:
Sorry about helping to spread this disinformation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not disinformation, shinden, you guys further investigated a first impression and found it was not supported by testing. I commend you all for taking a second look and posting your findings rather than letting the first impressions stand. This is precisely the good these forums can bring to the community.

bird_brain
06-15-2006, 03:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aviar:
Although I would be interested to see how you "...tested & MEASURED the gun induced yaw...". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm working on that now... basically I have set up a course over a runway with a tower at the 1/2 way point. I fly a straight line over the runway at a set speed & altitude. I record a track and then I then I can measure the difference in yaw when I begin firing at the tower. I will post a few screenies, but it is tedious to say the least.

The hardest part is making sure trim & attitude is consistent to reduce the variables. The results are readily visible in the gunsight view, but harder to see from outside. We're talking mils, not degrees. Once I get some finished results, I imagine it would be good to include in another bug report with specifics of speed vs lateral stability & gun induced yaw.

I am currently working with the F4U-1, F6F-3 & F4F-4 with the P-51 as a control.

Tater-SW-
06-16-2006, 12:30 PM
This is a showstopper for me. Manchuria might have gotten me to go through with the complex process of installing around boonty (the only reason I haven't bought Pe-2, something I had planned to do the instant it was released), but failure to fix this bogus yaw problem (that only exists for USN planes) is a line I won't cross.

tater

VW-IceFire
06-16-2006, 07:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
This is a showstopper for me. Manchuria might have gotten me to go through with the complex process of installing around boonty (the only reason I haven't bought Pe-2, something I had planned to do the instant it was released), but failure to fix this bogus yaw problem (that only exists for USN planes) is a line I won't cross.

tater </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So you will or won't buy the addon pack because of this issue?

shinden1974
06-16-2006, 08:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
This is a showstopper for me. Manchuria might have gotten me to go through with the complex process of installing around boonty (the only reason I haven't bought Pe-2, something I had planned to do the instant it was released), but failure to fix this bogus yaw problem (that only exists for USN planes) is a line I won't cross.

tater </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well, I hope you hang on a bit longer. Nothing has changed with the sim since pe-2, and I'm hoping a fix is coming with manchuria...

I get a little disheartened about this one because we get no feedback...and it seems as if some around here can basically post their way to some 'variant' while a real bug gets the cold shoulder...

Still, I remember the 'dirty' hellcat windows bug, and there was little feedback in these forums about that either...that bugs gone...so don't give up yet.

WWMaxGunz
06-17-2006, 04:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bird_brain:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aviar:
Although I would be interested to see how you "...tested & MEASURED the gun induced yaw...". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm working on that now... basically I have set up a course over a runway with a tower at the 1/2 way point. I fly a straight line over the runway at a set speed & altitude. I record a track and then I then I can measure the difference in yaw when I begin firing at the tower. I will post a few screenies, but it is tedious to say the least.

The hardest part is making sure trim & attitude is consistent to reduce the variables. The results are readily visible in the gunsight view, but harder to see from outside. We're talking mils, not degrees. Once I get some finished results, I imagine it would be good to include in another bug report with specifics of speed vs lateral stability & gun induced yaw.

I am currently working with the F4U-1, F6F-3 & F4F-4 with the P-51 as a control. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You could just do the straight and level flying then shoot straight ahead and make a track.
Devicelink the track and you will have a record in a log of all the vars you capture. Get
slip as well as heading. Note how many seconds in till you are firing during the playback.
Then you have it from the horse's mouth in the log file.

Tater-SW-
06-17-2006, 09:59 PM
I won't buy TWO add-on packs (have to buy pe-2 to get manchuria, and I have slightly greater than zero interest in the ETO, and less than that in the eastern front).

The USN planes singled out to be systematically crippled is indeed a showstopper for me. No other .50 cal planes show the behavior, the only explanation is what? "Get even" with Grumman? Who knows, lol. Regardless, I'll let the next add on come and go until I hear of a patch that fixes the yaw bug, at which point I can still buy them---hopefully in a turnkey way that doesn't require me to do an idiotic dance to not install software I didn't actually purchase.

My boonty decision was entirely principle, I don't want to pay to do the WORK required to remove something. Amazing that they lost the sale, I was ready to buy an add-on that I absolutely didn't care about at all. I don't fly eastern front since I got a PTO/SWPA/CBI option. Not ever. If I do buy pe-2 to get manchuria, I doubt I'll use anything in pe-2 longer than 5 minutes. So they had a product I was willing to pay to not use, and they botched it, lol.

tater

R_Target
06-18-2006, 09:43 PM
I actually have a bit more interest in the Manchuria and '46 add-ons than I did in Pe-2, but still I'll probably wait to see it this problem is addressed before I throw down the cash.

Aviar
06-26-2006, 01:17 PM
Apparently, the problem is being addressed in 4.06. Stay tuned for further reports.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/5161066754

Aviar

Tater-SW-
07-08-2006, 09:25 AM
Great to hear. Means I can buy 4.06m (and therefore pe-2).

tater