PDA

View Full Version : gunner accuracy



Stafroty
02-19-2006, 10:45 AM
is there too less dispersion in bomber gunner guns?

now, its mostly like sniping guns no matter if gun is pointed out with mucsle force,. just check movie battle of britain and membhis belle, on those films gunners are using real guns, check how guns are making recoil, how guns are jumpin in their hands with their hands and body, can that be as accuraet shooting as we got in game? Guns are aimed with muscle power, and, if gun can be moved inside airplane, doenst that mean, that also RECOIL can move the gun, as well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif that is seen in movies where they use real guns.

AI and human in game, have unrealicic advantages against Fighter pilots. one is gun accuracy, in all bombers, i would say that heavy machinegun would disperse even mount, if guns not attached on engined mounts, which if so, should be traversed with stick, not with mouse then http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

if gun is hand held, like rear gunners in most bombers, where gun is aimer with muscle force only, should there be much more disperse.

now, its like laser gunz. can shoot accuratelly at distances, and keep that fire concengradd on small area. and, why is light machineguns having bigger dispersion than heavy ones? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif wind affecting so much?

i would see heavy machinegun, in T 72 tower as in AAA mount, shot as accuratelly on constant auto fire as can be shot with light machinegun with support legs. in game, its vice versa. so, i call, not realistic.

i would like somekind of inertia to get in Gunner positions where guns are based on muscle aimin.

Stafroty
02-19-2006, 10:45 AM
is there too less dispersion in bomber gunner guns?

now, its mostly like sniping guns no matter if gun is pointed out with mucsle force,. just check movie battle of britain and membhis belle, on those films gunners are using real guns, check how guns are making recoil, how guns are jumpin in their hands with their hands and body, can that be as accuraet shooting as we got in game? Guns are aimed with muscle power, and, if gun can be moved inside airplane, doenst that mean, that also RECOIL can move the gun, as well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif that is seen in movies where they use real guns.

AI and human in game, have unrealicic advantages against Fighter pilots. one is gun accuracy, in all bombers, i would say that heavy machinegun would disperse even mount, if guns not attached on engined mounts, which if so, should be traversed with stick, not with mouse then http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

if gun is hand held, like rear gunners in most bombers, where gun is aimer with muscle force only, should there be much more disperse.

now, its like laser gunz. can shoot accuratelly at distances, and keep that fire concengradd on small area. and, why is light machineguns having bigger dispersion than heavy ones? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif wind affecting so much?

i would see heavy machinegun, in T 72 tower as in AAA mount, shot as accuratelly on constant auto fire as can be shot with light machinegun with support legs. in game, its vice versa. so, i call, not realistic.

i would like somekind of inertia to get in Gunner positions where guns are based on muscle aimin.

p1ngu666
02-19-2006, 10:51 AM
id like unsynced turret guns http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

F19_Olli72
02-19-2006, 10:57 AM
Id like not my plane to crash cos theres noone to fly the plane if I get killed as a gunner. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

CD_kp84yb
02-19-2006, 12:21 PM
hehehe

Its more funnier when you are gunner and you pilot gets shot, you cant bail out, hahahaha happened to me on wc.
I was in Ju88 and some plane at my six, so i manned the reargunner and bam got message pilot is killed ,lol you can't fly but you still can control the flaps, so i hit bail out. UH UH that didnt work http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

regards

blakduk
02-19-2006, 05:55 PM
Before i played any of the Il2 series i too believed that unescorted bombers were easy kills. Many previous flight sims i had mastered confirmed this belief for me. In Il2 however I was shocked to find that cruising to within an easy killing range of a bomber meant i got shot A LOT by the gunners. What i have since learned is that in fact a lot of fighters were crippled by relatively lightly armed bombers in WW2.
I have just finished the excellent account of the BOB 'The Most Dangerous Enemy'. It makes mention of the number of fighters that were hit and had to disengage due to defensive fire from such medium bombers as the He111. It also describes the often appalling inefficiency of the British fighters who were trying to finish off bomber formations that had lost their escorts.
Such accounts have turned my thinking around- experience of the game and accounts i have read of the real battles now make me believe that Oleg has it about right. The graphics may not appear to be exactly accurate but i believe accuracy of their fire and the damage they inflict is.
Keep the key factors in play- maintain speed, dont fly straight, hit hard and run!

blakduk
02-19-2006, 06:10 PM
Stafroty <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">if gun is hand held, like rear gunners in most bombers, where gun is aimer with muscle force only, should there be much more disperse. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The key there is the gun is 'aimed' with muscle force only. Some of the most famous footage of gunners in air combat is from a B17 crew flying over europe- they are standing at the open sides of the plane shooting MG's that are held in placeby a single point. The guns are bucking wildly and the floor is strewn with casings. The reason they were filmed in action was because they could be- the camerman could stand next to them and see what they were doing. It was a lot more dramatic as well as visually interesting to watch them at work. It wasnt possible to stand outside and watch what the turret gunners were doing.
Those mounts were quite unusual, most times the guns were held in much more secure mounts. Heavy bomber often had them in pairs (or fours) within a turret, which was held by hydraulics. These guns were well balanced and quite stable. You see very little gun-camera footage of fighters lining up for a hit from dead astern unless its from a 262 that has an incredible speed advantage. Most attacks were slashing manouvures that got through the barrage of fire as quickly as possible.
Also the gunners were well trained, they weren't just sent up to act as ballast.
Even crippled bombers that were out of formation had to be attacked with due regard for their defensive fire.

p1ngu666
02-19-2006, 06:32 PM
waist gunners where the least effective, due to the gunmounts, but mostly because of how hard it is to deflection shoot and it is ingame.

turret guns where much better.

i very rarely use the waist guns on the b25 and he111, the ju88 doesnt have any..

horseback
02-19-2006, 10:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by blakduk:
Before i played any of the Il2 series i too believed that unescorted bombers were easy kills. Many previous flight sims i had mastered confirmed this belief for me. In Il2 however I was shocked to find that cruising to within an easy killing range of a bomber meant i got shot A LOT by the gunners. What i have since learned is that in fact a lot of fighters were crippled by relatively lightly armed bombers in WW2.
I have just finished the excellent account of the BOB 'The Most Dangerous Enemy'. It makes mention of the number of fighters that were hit and had to disengage due to defensive fire from such medium bombers as the He111. It also describes the often appalling inefficiency of the British fighters who were trying to finish off bomber formations that had lost their escorts.
Such accounts have turned my thinking around- experience of the game and accounts i have read of the real battles now make me believe that Oleg has it about right. The graphics may not appear to be exactly accurate but i believe accuracy of their fire and the damage they inflict is.
Keep the key factors in play- maintain speed, dont fly straight, hit hard and run! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Most RAF squadrons used a series of standard attacks, as predictable as the sunrise for much of the BoB, well known to the Germans by the time they started hitting England proper. Most involved approaching at a relatively small angle from the rear at a slow rate of closure, because the RAF had paid next to no attention to air to air gunnery in the years prior to the war, and the rifle caliber MGs they used had to be fired at very short ranges to have any effect...

The survivors of the BoB learned a very bloody lesson as a result.

HOWEVER, most of their casualties were the result of attacking formations which could provide mutual support and put up a hell of a lot of bullets in the general vicinity of an approaching fighter.

Individual bombers and Me 110s were generally easy kills even from the rear, because an adequate fighter pilot could get his multiple guns to bear on the gunner's position more easily than the gunner could get his single MG to bear on the attacking aircraft.

This is where this sim falls down; shooting down an aircraft from another aircraft with a machine gun on a flexible mount from an open cockpit is just damned hard, particularly when you have the whole tail of your aircraft sitting between you and your target.

It's loud, you're always cold, you and your target are moving and bouncing around unpredictable ways, and you don't control your guns with a mouse...

The ai are unfailingly aware of your exact position as soon as you reach the theoretical 'accurate range' of their guns, they are unaffected by the maneuvers and gyrations of their pilot as he tries to avoid your attack (to the point that I have been fatally hit by a gunner in a recently dewinged victim, who fired a burst at me every time he rotated until the bastage hit the ground).

On top of that, the ai gunner is harder to kill than the Terminator, and about as easy to scare.

cheers

horseback

Stafroty
02-20-2006, 03:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by blakduk:
Stafroty <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">if gun is hand held, like rear gunners in most bombers, where gun is aimer with muscle force only, should there be much more disperse. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The key there is the gun is 'aimed' with muscle force only. Some of the most famous footage of gunners in air combat is from a B17 crew flying over europe- they are standing at the open sides of the plane shooting MG's that are held in placeby a single point. The guns are bucking wildly and the floor is strewn with casings. The reason they were filmed in action was because they could be- the camerman could stand next to them and see what they were doing. It was a lot more dramatic as well as visually interesting to watch them at work. It wasnt possible to stand outside and watch what the turret gunners were doing.
Those mounts were quite unusual, most times the guns were held in much more secure mounts. Heavy bomber often had them in pairs (or fours) within a turret, which was held by hydraulics. These guns were well balanced and quite stable. You see very little gun-camera footage of fighters lining up for a hit from dead astern unless its from a 262 that has an incredible speed advantage. Most attacks were slashing manouvures that got through the barrage of fire as quickly as possible.
Also the gunners were well trained, they weren't just sent up to act as ballast.
Even crippled bombers that were out of formation had to be attacked with due regard for their defensive fire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


why is the turrets operated with mouse? why isnt there any Shaking with the gunsights because man behind the gun is moving, in turret or no turret. no inertia or whatsoever with mouse aimed guns, its like FPS game, really.

anasteksi
02-20-2006, 03:56 AM
there's recoil in most fps games...

pourshot
02-20-2006, 04:04 AM
Add to this aiming by hand the fact that many of those gunners had to stand up while doing it, now imagine trying to do that while the plane is swerving all over the sky and pulling G then I think it would be more hard than in this game

Waldo.Pepper
02-20-2006, 04:05 AM
Most bombers in this game are all but helpless, and are EASY KILLS, if you conduct your attack - properly.

NonWonderDog
02-20-2006, 04:09 AM
Yes, but they shouldn't be instant death if you do it improperly.

p1ngu666
02-20-2006, 07:21 AM
g forces are modeled for gunnners

human gunners are better due to practice, but so are fighter jocks.

besides the guns on the weakest flyable, the ju88 are pretty dire.

scored 325 air hits, shot down 1 tempest and damaged another, thats remarkable. in its direness.

gunner turrets dont have cutouts so its very easy to shoot your own rudder off.
the martin turret have cutoff which stopped each gun individualy...

FliegerAas
02-20-2006, 07:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
[...]

On top of that, the ai gunner is harder to kill than the Terminator, and about as easy to scare.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I was trapped in an alley way with the Terminator armed with a HMG guarding one, and an IL2 gunner armed with a Pistol with a single bullet guarding the other exit, I would definitely try to escape into the direction of the terminator....

SnapdLikeAMutha
02-20-2006, 08:11 AM
It gets a bit silly when you're blown apart by guns on a bomber at which YOU ARE DIVING FROM THE SUN AT 650 KILOMETERS PER HOUR!!

p1ngu666
02-20-2006, 08:52 AM
it depends on what the plane is

human gunners are good

ai gunners on a human plane are DIRE.

ai gunners on a ai plane canbe hax

certain plane types have hax gunners, stuka's for example

p-11.cAce
02-20-2006, 10:01 AM
I have basically come to the point of only flying bombers on (and off) line and the pilots who post these threads either A) do not know how to properly attack a bomber or B) have never flown a bomber. The reality is that in all but a very few servers if you fly a bomber you are a fat, slow, unescorted high value target. You are obviously going to attack a ground target so the bad guys know where you are going. Getting up high & setting up runs from unexpected directions helps some as long as there are no icons or friendly only icons - otherwise you are done for. It is a VERY rare mission that I actually get to drop & return home - even then I ususally take flak damage and have a gunner or two killed. Maybe the accuracy is overdone (skeptical) but it is just marginal imho considering that we often operate alone. In the b-25 once your top turret gunner is killed (happens often as that is one of the best angles to attack from) you might as well just ctrl-e. I'm sorry but if you have not done the research on where my cones of fire are you deserve to get bloodied a little bit - no matter how you look at it a fighter will ALWAYS have the advantage on a bomber - your performance is better in every way, you have many more options, and multiple props carry the burden of a higher score.

CD_kp84yb
02-20-2006, 10:25 AM
well i realy love to fly the bombers and groundpounders, flew fighters for a long time but that became boring, but i think that the game should not give 200 or 400 points for downing a bomber.


Why not give 100 points for a plane (fighter or mutiple engine plane) destroyed, looks good to me cos i dont give *burp* about the points anyway. I play for fun and the thrill to take a target out. If the server has no good groundtargets, or not defended by decent flak, i will search another.

Just my thoughts

LUFT11_Hoflich
02-20-2006, 10:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FliegerAas:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
[...]

On top of that, the ai gunner is harder to kill than the Terminator, and about as easy to scare.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I was trapped in an alley way with the Terminator armed with a HMG guarding one, and an IL2 gunner armed with a Pistol with a single bullet guarding the other exit, I would definitely try to escape into the direction of the terminator.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No kidding m8...

Anyone noticed AI gunners on B-25 Deathstars and other AI and flyable planes very hard to kill? I've scored several hits on rear, top and ventral gunner positions with 20mm cannons and they still manage to shot me to pieces, Shouldn't gunners be killed more easily? specially if hit by explosive rounds. When I fly Stuka or Me-110 My gunners are as good as dead when they see a fighter dead 6"

H¶f...

p-11.cAce
02-20-2006, 11:07 AM
You do realize that B-25 gun positions were equipped with both armor and in some positions bullet resistant glass? Believe me I have my gunners killed OFTEN - I think too many of the whiners in this type of thread underestimate the difficulty of WWII combat. Even the full switch no icon servers provide much more action than would have been experienced in RL. As for citing movies (even good ones) or newsreels as "representative" of how things should be - well every cop movie I've ever seen shows a .22 pistol shot blowing up a car so I guess our .50's are WAY undermodeled http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Stafroty
02-20-2006, 01:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
You do realize that B-25 gun positions were equipped with both armor and in some positions bullet resistant glass? Believe me I have my gunners killed OFTEN - I think too many of the whiners in this type of thread underestimate the difficulty of WWII combat. Even the full switch no icon servers provide much more action than would have been experienced in RL. As for citing movies (even good ones) or newsreels as "representative" of how things should be - well every cop movie I've ever seen shows a .22 pistol shot blowing up a car so I guess our .50's are WAY undermodeled http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

how often fighter goes down when engagin you, more often than your bomber?

LUFT11_Hoflich
02-20-2006, 01:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
You do realize that B-25 gun positions were equipped with both armor and in some positions bullet resistant glass? Believe me I have my gunners killed OFTEN - I think too many of the whiners in this type of thread underestimate the difficulty of WWII combat. Even the full switch no icon servers provide much more action than would have been experienced in RL. As for citing movies (even good ones) or newsreels as "representative" of how things should be - well every cop movie I've ever seen shows a .22 pistol shot blowing up a car so I guess our .50's are WAY undermodeled http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How much armor did it had in such positions?
Can a direct hit on the windshield of a top, rear, or ventral gunner withstand a 20 or 30mm cannon hit? not to mention hits that go though the roof of the fuselage and INTO the area where the gunners are positioned. Now.. if a 20 or 30mm round explodes nearby one of those individuals, does it have the power to kill or maim or disable a gunner?

I have no sources or anything, just think that gunners are TOO WELL protected against hevy caliber guns than they should.

Some enlightment in this matter wouldn't hurt m8ees...
H¶f...

p-11.cAce
02-20-2006, 01:57 PM
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c99/acmeaviator/b25armourprotection.jpg

I am not in disagreement that there are times when gunners are not killed by hits that should probably kill them - of course there are times when ground targets escape destruction when I know darn well they would at least have been impaired in rl if not destroyed. My experience is that if I get caught by a fighter I'm going to die 9 out of 10 times. Even if my gunners bag you I've got big fuel tanks in the wings that are easy to set fire to or blow a hole in to big to self seal; I've got big control surfaces that are easy to damage or destroy making a landing impossible; I've got gunners that DO get killed frequently and if I've survived you your buddy will do me in. My point is that if the bombers are neutered I don't see how any mission will be survivable - its *** hard now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

horseback
02-20-2006, 02:33 PM
There are very clear differences between the gunners on human-crewed aircraft and 'pure' ai aircraft. I suspect that there may be some differences between ai offline and ai online.

I limit myself to commenting about offline ai gunners, where I dwell most often. These are ludicrous in every detail, and NOT in any way enhancing immersion or realism. I've been inside a number of warbirds with gunners' positions, including SB2C, TBM-3, B-17, B-24, B-25, and A-20s, both turret and 'open'/flexible mounts, and these were much more ergonomically efficient than the average WWII gunners' positions.

All of them left me feeling just a bit naked to enemy gunfire; your head and shoulders stick up out of the fuselage, or you're 'protected' by thin-guage aluminum from the slipstream (but not heavy caliber rounds). Sure, there was 'armor', but it was limited to the places someone else thought was the most likely direction that rounds or shrapnel might strike from. Remember, the pilots were the best-protected, not the gunners.

I remember talking with a docent at one air museum who had been a waist gunner on B-17s. He said that the 'bullet proof' glass was just one more thing to shatter and become a missile hazard if hit by enemy fire, so they usually removed the waist window glass, despite the cold from the wind; you often couldn't stand without holding on to something (he was never sure if it was due to the cold, the stress/fear, the aircraft bouncing around in the air, or a combination of the three).

He wasn't aware of it, but he was crying as he remembered and talked about it. I felt a little ashamed when I realized that I caused him that relived pain just so I could get an idea about what it was like.

cheers

horseback

Zoom2136
02-20-2006, 02:56 PM
The thing I my mind that should be fixed A.S.A.P. is gunners shooting you trought clouds this really http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

And like in Ghost Recon when you shoot a heavy machine gun you should have dispersion... a little on a short burt alot on sustained firing ... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

F19_Olli72
02-20-2006, 03:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zoom2136:
The thing I my mind that should be fixed A.S.A.P. is gunners shooting you trought clouds this really http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats not an issue regarding ai gunners. Its AI period. ALL AI can see through clouds, fighters as well. So get used to it.

Stigler_9_JG52
02-20-2006, 03:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
Yes, but they shouldn't be instant death if you do it improperly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

BINGO. This sim's "modeling" of gunners who are immune to all the physiological factors that complicate the flex gunner's problems...

a) flying sideways or backwards
b) having a gun on a swivel, subject to g-forces
c)not controlling, or being able to anticipate even the slightest movements of the plane that the pilot makes
d) the gun's recoil (they're not mounted, like that of the fixed forward guns)

means that the AI uses its infallible information (this same source is providing you with the entire sim experience, remember) to create ridiculously accurate unreal gunnery. Never a hit on the fuselage or the wings, or a tailplane...nope...right into the engine, or the canopy....EVERY TIME. And it can do this while the plane is in a break turn or upside down in a barrel roll.

Ludicrous and ridiculous.

dadada1
02-21-2006, 05:43 AM
AI gunner accuracy has always been suspect and it's not helped by inconsistancies. I've always maintained that PE 2 gunners are some of the most accurate. The PE 2 stands out espescially because it manages such wild evasive manouvers and yet the number of PKs I've experienced trying to nail one. The PE gunners accuracy under such manouvers is just startling, ultimately this ruins credibilitly as your left with the feeling your fighting a computer. I beleive all most people here want is less inconsistancy, but I doubt that AI gunners will ever be something that is looked at again with any sense of commitment and honesty.

Stafroty
02-21-2006, 06:35 AM
now gunners hit you with certain %. and Gun accuracy in that % when it should be detached form it. now, when fighter plane comes in range, you can accurately shoot at one point of the enemy fighter, even in air or not. doesnt much be real.

and those "armor plates" what was in picture, are 1/4 " thick, preventing fragments and ammo to go throught them, when in real, it wasnt realistic.(called as: burst plate)

this thread brings me issue about Plexiglass head armour on YAK3 fighter, you can hit it infinitelly, without it to break up.


anyone remember Runther Rall?? He got .50cal round right on his forehead from bomber thru armour glass or such. it didnt kill him, as range was too long for that to happen. in game, no matter, you die.

F19_Olli72
02-21-2006, 06:47 AM
Stigler, why dont you show us how uber the gunners are by going online in a bomber. I want to see how many you can take down just by relying on the AI gunners http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Tracks please.

Stafroty i used to fly bombers a lot on GG, mainly Stuka. The avarage hit% of AI was around 2 - 3 % from stats.

horseback
02-21-2006, 09:34 AM
Olli, you consistantly confuse the issue between ai gunners on human-crewed aircraft and pure ai aircraft gunners offline.

They are clearly two different things.

You can do your own offline test. Set up a QMB with two flights of bombers for you and your flight of four to attack. Order your wingmen to attack the bombers, and watch how easily they dispatch their prey.

Now order your flight home, & attack the surviving bombers, using the same methods you just watched the ai fighters use. You might survive your first pass, but your engine will be smoking or stopped no later than the second.

It is quite obvious that when the human player enters the equation, the ai response changes radically.

Admittedly, it's a lot better than in the days when the gunners in the FW-189 were the deadliest thing in the skies, but there's still a long way to go.

cheers

horseback

p-11.cAce
02-21-2006, 09:47 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif ok please excuse me while I go into rant mode here:
You guys that are whining about "deathstar B-25's" and everything else have obviously not spent much time in bombers in game. Oh and by the way this IS a sim. Of all the things that could be improved in this sim which would TRULY enhance it - better turbulance, ANY WIND, better dots, clickable cockpits, improved adverse yaw modeling on all aircraft, ANY WIND (sorry but in RL you ALWAYS have to compensate for it), etc. you guys want gunner physiological gunner modeling? You want to burden your cpu with calculating these silly little things to make up for an imagined fault. Is the sim true to life in every way - no. Could it be more true to life - yes. Should that effort be made in an area to appease someone who honestly just does not know how to attack a bomber - never. My gunners rarely bag a fighter in warclouds or historia - they bag them left and right in afj and 334th. Says something. Rant mode off http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif

MystiqBlackCat
02-21-2006, 09:56 AM
I have to ask how some of you are attacking bombers?

My preferred method is one that I took from a couple books on the Luftwaffe. Head on attack from about 10 or 15 degrees above. One of these cripples, two normally does the job, three is normally overkill but occasionally necessary.

In servers like Spits109s and Hisotria the briefings often tell you what to defend. Once I find bombers I make repeated attacks from head on, they almost never turn away as it will spoil their bombing run. As far as I'm concerned they are easy pickings.

At least until fighter help shows up. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

::edit::
If a medium bomber is maneuvering then you've already done your job, that guy isnt going to be able to make an accurate attack as he will have to wait for his bombsite to reset. In that situation I would climb up and out of range from his gunners and wait for him to pick a new course and then resume with head on or slashing attacks from his frontal quarter.

p1ngu666
02-21-2006, 10:01 AM
ppl dont have the patience todo head on attacks

p-11.cAce
02-21-2006, 10:03 AM
Mystiq you hit it right on the head & you are right about being on bomb run - after spending 15 or 20 minutes climbing and getting into position I'm not pulling off a good run for much of anything - you either kill me or you don't but I'm glued to the sight until I drop! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

MystiqBlackCat
02-21-2006, 10:07 AM
i have noticed that Pingu.

But if they dont have the patience to set up a proper attack then they shouldnt feel the need to post and complain about so called uber-deathstar-gunner-b-25s.

I hear ya P-11.cAce, I fool around with bomers occasionally but I cant hit anything. But I wont turn away til those bombs are gone!

p-11.cAce
02-21-2006, 10:19 AM
Yeah if you really want realism you should be complaining that you can take off and engage an enemy in a few minutes - rare until very late in the way. Flying a real mission took hours upon hours of flying for (maybe) a few moments of fighting then hours and hours of flying back home - gee sounds fun huh?

horseback
02-21-2006, 10:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif ok please excuse me while I go into rant mode here:
You guys that are whining about "deathstar B-25's" and everything else have obviously not spent much time in bombers in game. Oh and by the way this IS a sim. Of all the things that could be improved in this sim which would TRULY enhance it - better turbulance, ANY WIND, better dots, clickable cockpits, improved adverse yaw modeling on all aircraft, ANY WIND (sorry but in RL you ALWAYS have to compensate for it), etc. you guys want gunner physiological gunner modeling? You want to burden your cpu with calculating these silly little things to make up for an imagined fault. Is the sim true to life in every way - no. Could it be more true to life - yes. Should that effort be made in an area to appease someone who honestly just does not know how to attack a bomber - never. My gunners rarely bag a fighter in warclouds or historia - they bag them left and right in afj and 334th. Says something. Rant mode off http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>As I have repeatedly pointed out, the worst offenders are the pure ai aircraft gunners offline, and I personally, could give a rat's patoot about flying bombers and 'my' ai gunners on or offline; from what I see and hear, those default to more realistic standards.

You don't need physiological modelling or wind; you simply need to have defined reasonable cones of fire with appropriate range accuracy for each gunner position, with the gunner turned 'off' (or progressively limited) when the position (and it's vicinity when hit by explosive rounds) is struck by the attacking aircraft's rounds, or the aircraft is radically maneuvering/disabled.

Having the gunners' accuracy set by the mission builder/generator would be reasonable, too. It wold be nice to set them to realistic (that is, ineffective beyond 150m, worse at the edges of their cones of fire), and then on to the current normal game settings Ace (deadly from 650m in from any angle), Veteran (deadly from 500m in from any angle), Average (deadly from 450m in from any angle), and Rookie (deadly from 350m in from any angle), according to your personal desires.

Naturally, I'd expect that realism will have a price in FPS, but I'm quite willing to pay that price in the interests of realism.

cheers

horseback

Waldo.Pepper
02-21-2006, 11:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
ppl dont have the patience todo head on attacks </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bingo!

Stigler_9_JG52
02-21-2006, 11:15 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MystiqBlackCat:
...if they dont have the patience to set up a proper attack then they shouldnt feel the need to post and complain about so called uber-deathstar-gunner-b-25s.
QUOTE]

Two different things entirely.

Nobody is arguing that if you make a rear quarter attack on a bomber, you should expect to take more damage, more often than if you make wingline or frontal attacks (by the way, those are much harder to set up and time than any other attack due to the closure rate and the vastly reduced firing window; often a few milliseconds!!).

However, it is STILL true that the gunners are unrealistically accurate in their ability to hit, their ability to aim when their aircraft is maneuvering, and their hit PLACEMENT. This third factor is the most damning, because way, way too often, the first hit cripples an attacking plane, and that just isn't how it was by anyone's estimation.

So, it does not do any good for you to put the "blame" solely on the attacker to only use "the best" attack profile, when in fact, he should be able to have some success with a less-effective attack profile, without taking one in the oil pan or the forehead almost EVERY TIME. Put the blame where it lies: with the sim designer. We should be able to choose our attack profiles from a variety of them and live (or die) by the RIGHT consequences.

p-11.cAce
02-21-2006, 11:58 AM
I know online when my gunners get killed they quit shooting - in the b-25 I coul care less about the waists but when that top turret or tail gunner is gone I'm in big trouble. I've never paid any attention offline to what happens - I'm assuming its the same but most of my offline flight time is spent on my target ranges in fmb.

marc_hawkins
02-21-2006, 12:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">in the b-25 I coul care less about the waists </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Blimey, wouldn't wanna be a gunner in your plane! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

F19_Olli72
02-21-2006, 12:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
Olli, you consistantly confuse the issue between ai gunners on human-crewed aircraft and pure ai aircraft gunners offline.

They are clearly two different things.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then i dont see the problem at all, simply put ai to rookie level. Offline, the ai is adjustable.

horseback
02-21-2006, 02:15 PM
I repeat:

It would be nice to set them to realistic (that is, ineffective beyond 150m, worse at the edges of their cones of fire), and then on to the current normal game settings Ace (deadly from 650m in from any angle), Veteran (deadly from 500m in from any angle), Average (deadly from 450m in from any angle), and Rookie (deadly from 300m in from any angle), according to your personal desires.

Naturally, I'd expect that realism will have a price in FPS, but I'm quite willing to pay that price in the interests of realism.

cheers

horseback

TX-Zen
02-21-2006, 02:26 PM
Even after all this time I find it extremely hard to believe that in real life a single bomber can defend itself as effectively as they do in this game. There was a reason they used a box formation...it wasn't accuracy from the gunners, it was to put up a hail of bullets that enemy fighters had to fly through.

If real life bombers were this accurate, they would have carried twice the number of guns and used all the escort fighters for mud moving.

LUFT11_Hoflich
02-21-2006, 02:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TX-Zen:
Even after all this time I find it extremely hard to believe that in real life a single bomber can defend itself as effectively as they do in this game. There was a reason they used a box formation...it wasn't accuracy from the gunners, it was to put up a hail of bullets that enemy fighters had to fly through.

If real life bombers were this accurate, they would have carried twice the number of guns and used all the escort fighters for mud moving. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree...

Wasn't there a model of the B17 that didn't carry bombs, but was armed with extra machine guns/ammo and flew in the outer edges of the formations as GUNSHIPS? I don't recall where did I read this but I bet theres some of oyu guys that heard or read about this.

Also that those gunships weren't any help for protecting fellow bombers and were often shot to pieces same as the other bombers, those extra guns didn't help too much if separated from the DEFENSIVE formation.

Also.. why some LW gun camera films you see attacking from dead 6" rear gunner, ball turret and top gunner seem like theyre not firing as the LW aircraft is shooting from very close and indiscriminately, only breaks off just not to collide. ???

H¶f...

FliegerAas
02-21-2006, 02:48 PM
The sim can't handle big formations without a serious FPS drop. Maybe the missing "hail of bullets" is compensated by more accurate gunners?
Just a thought and by far not the best solutions if this is the reason for the sniper AI.

A little anecdote: Today I tried to attack a formation of 4 B24. I was flying ~450kph pulling hard and looking up to the B24's (approx 200m away)when I saw a single tracer heading for my cockpit....headshot! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

p-11.cAce
02-21-2006, 03:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> If real life bombers were this accurate, they would have carried twice the number of guns and used all the escort fighters for mud moving.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah sure. Typical fighter jock - my fwbf10034/ABG model could outbomb those B-25 guys anyday http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Like I said before in the "real" servers even when flying in a flight of 4 if we get spotted we usually don't escape unless our escort is close and accurate - not only that it is the rare mission that my gunners bag a fighter. And hate to burst your bubble Flieger but 450 is not that fast and 200m is really ***close to be beneath a B-24 with a gunner in the ball whose only task is to take you out shooting from a relativley stable platform. You, on the other hand, are trying to fly and stabalize an unstable platform and aim and shoot. Geeze you guys crack me up.

F19_Olli72
02-21-2006, 04:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LUFT11_Hoflich:


Also.. why some LW gun camera films you see attacking from dead 6" rear gunner, ball turret and top gunner seem like theyre not firing as the LW aircraft is shooting from very close and indiscriminately, only breaks off just not to collide. ???

H¶f... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well obviously cos the ones killed by gunners didnt make it home to develop the film...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Heres a fun excerpt from "Luftwaffe aces" by F. Kurowski page 9:

"Spitfire from five o'clock, range 400...300..250! That was the signal for Helbig to turn; the enemy fighter would surely open fire at any moment. Helbig hauled the Ju-88 around in a steep turn. The Spitfire opened fire but the burst passed to the bombers right. At that instant Schlund opened fire with his machine gun. The pursuing Spitfire flew into the long burst. Flames pouring from its engine, it veered off. Helbig then swung the bomber back to the right. Unable to stay behind the Ju-88, the next Spitfire roared past. It was also hit several times and, like its predocessor, it veered off trailing smoke."

Note how Schlund fires and hits the Spitfires while Helbig is making evasive maneouvers. Something Stigler claims was impossible.

Or... maybe Schlund was one of them ubergunners i keep hearing so much about.

NonWonderDog
02-21-2006, 04:48 PM
Aiming from an aircraft in flight is hardly a "stable platform," especially if you're standing upright and trying to aim through an iron ring. Powered turrets aren't much better -- unless there were gyroscopically stabilized gun turrets in WWII I'd expect powered turrets to be almost *less* accurate than pintle mounted guns. There would really be no way to compensate for turbulence.

The stability of the planes in flight is really the reason human gunners are so accurate. There's almost no turbulence in the sim. Comparing AI and human gunners really doesn't prove much.


But with AI bombers with AI gunners, I can't remember *EVER* killing a gunner. I've put 30mm shells into the gunner on an IL2 field mod and had him shoot me in the face five seconds later. If I fly an IL2 myself my gunner almost always dies, either to enemy aircraft or even ground fire.

But is there anyone who denies that it is rediculous for AI bomber gunners to fire and *score headshots* when the plane is doing barrel rolls? The waist gunners should barely be able to fire in a level turn!

p-11.cAce
02-21-2006, 07:22 PM
I've never barrel rolled a B-25 so I cannot comment - all I know is my **** gunners get killed all the time.

TX-Zen
02-21-2006, 07:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> If real life bombers were this accurate, they would have carried twice the number of guns and used all the escort fighters for mud moving.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah sure. Typical fighter jock - my fwbf10034/ABG model could outbomb those B-25 guys anyday http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Like I said before in the "real" servers even when flying in a flight of 4 if we get spotted we usually don't escape unless our escort is close and accurate - not only that it is the rare mission that my gunners bag a fighter. And hate to burst your bubble Flieger but 450 is not that fast and 200m is really ***close to be beneath a B-24 with a gunner in the ball whose only task is to take you out shooting from a relativley stable platform. You, on the other hand, are trying to fly and stabalize an unstable platform and aim and shoot. Geeze you guys crack me up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you ever fired a 50 cal machine gun? I have. The recoil alone classifies it as an area fire weapon and thats from a vehicle mount or tripod.

We used to train using the M2 from the commanders station on the M1A1 tank by firing at stationary trucks and BTR armored personnel carriers at 500m. You know what? Firing from a stationary tank at a stationary target when aiming through a 3x optic yields about 25% hit rate on a good day. Some people never get the hang of it and get less than 10% hits.

There is no turbulence on a tank range like you'd see at 25,000 feet. There is no freezing temperature to deal with. You are not shooting at a small target moving in with a 160km/h speed advantage. You are not firing along with 5-8 other crewmen and other bombers nearby...on a tank you have all the advantages except for computer assisted ballistics correction but you actually have a magnified optic on top of that, plus you have 3-4 seconds or more to line up the 50 on the target before you cross the berm to fire.

And with all that, you still score roughly 25% hits.


Now on a bomber with all of the conditions we all know so much about, you seriously expect gunners to hit often enough to bring down a plane...by themselves? In my opinion no bomber should stand a chance against fighters in this sim and what we have now is unrealistically high lethality.

Change the criteria to include mass formations of bombers with realistic numbers of machine guns firing and I'd be fine with that...thats simulating history. German pilots often told of the horror's of flying into a bomber box because of the volume of fire that it produced. But volume is generated by lots of guns on lots of bombers.

Yet people expect to climb in a B25 in this game and then expect to have even the slightest chance of making it back to base just because they have numerous machine guns all over their plane? I think in real life it's pretty well established that a lone B17 was easy pickings for a single 109...the B17 naturally has considerably more machine guns and damage resistance than a B25 and it was considered easy prey by a single fighter....why would we expect anything different in the sim?

p-11.cAce
02-21-2006, 07:25 PM
oh and by the way bombers are built specifically to be stable platforms in flight - especially WWII bombers as any large instability tossed the gyros (as well as it does in the sim) of the bombsight. Why do you think they have such huge tailsurfaces (or in the case of the B-17 dorsal fin and big tailsurfaces??? Once again those who know how to attack a bomber do and succeed, the wannabes just come in here and whine about needing an even easier target.

p-11.cAce
02-21-2006, 07:29 PM
blah blah blah - did you not read my earlier post about not making it back to base 9 out of 10 times? I seriously do not know what the problem is - I get taken out way more than I like to admit. If you want 100% certainty of killing a bomber every time you shoot at one then why the **** even play the game? I play for that 1 time out of 10 that maybe I get to drop - even then its maybe 1 in 20 that I hit the target and get kills - I gurantee that you are dropping bombers more than 1 in 20 times! Geeeze go play freaking MahJong on pogo or some **** if you want a sure win!

TX-Zen
02-21-2006, 07:36 PM
I don't play the game for points and I don't play the game to shoot down bombers. I don't enjoy looking around for bombers so I can run up an easy score...what kind of fun is that? Some online guy went to all the trouble to start up all those engines, taxi, get to altitude and fly all the way to where ever he is and then I come in with a 3 second burst to make him start all over...sorry, not really my cup of tea.

I've been on the other side numerous times in the HE111, Ju87 and the B25 too. I personally like flying bombers when the mood strikes me......but cmon, lets have some common sense shall we? Thats all I'm saying.

MystiqBlackCat
02-21-2006, 07:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Wasn't there a model of the B17 that didn't carry bombs, but was armed with extra machine guns/ammo and flew in the outer edges of the formations as GUNSHIPS? I don't recall where did I read this but I bet theres some of oyu guys that heard or read about this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have read about the gunships as well, they were supposed to be mixed in with the rest of the formation but they ad various problems, I believe that they were significantly slower after the other B-17s dropped their bombs. Also they weren't very effective at deterring fighters. In Forked Tailed Devil by Martin Cadin a B-17 crew took one up to set up a trap for an Italian pilot who was flying a P-38 and had been picking off stragglers for a couple months. Good story, I might post it later.

I believe that the gunners are modelled the way they are because of the relatively smaller groups of aircraft that the game cna handle as compared to real life as well as PC limitations for those whose systems aren't cutting edge.

I apologize if I insulted anyone with my previous posts, I was having a bad day at work. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

I see everyone's points about the recoil on .50s, maneuvering planes, and other stuff. Most of the time I don't have any trouble attacking any kind of aircraft with defensive armament. Head-on attacks, and possible slashing attacks work just fine for me on and off line. I do get damage, but most of the time I make it out unscathed. I used to have alot of engine kills when attacking bombers but I changed my tactics and the changes have paid off for me.

I would be concerned for Bomber pilots online if their gunners were toned down as they dont fly in formations of 500+ or even 50+. The biggest formation I have ever seen since I started playing with the original IL-2 was 7 or 8 aircraft. Needless to say this provides much less protection.

Also don't forget that this accuracy also applies to Flak gunners. Anyone who has flown a mission online in a bomber knows what its like to be turned into swiss cheese by three or four flak gunners. AAA makes up for the deficiencies of aerial interception. Half the time when I take up a bomber its the Flak that gets me not other aircraft.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
....2 cents....

IV_JG51_Prien
02-21-2006, 08:19 PM
I too have shot a M2HB .50cal off of fairly stable platforms. (Ship, and tripod mounted) and I can back up Zen on the accuracy.. They are by no means a sniper rifle.. the rate of fire and amount of recoil associated with the weapons does not add up to any kind of great accuracy, especially not the kind of accuracy that you see in IL2.

B17, The Mighty Eighth is a great game to see a much better representation of what it was most likely like to fight in and against a formation of Bombers. On the highest difficulty settings, even fighters coming in from dead 6 were not guaranteed kills and were a very real threat... Get your bomber separated from the formation with 109's and 190's around? Kiss your butt goodbye, game over. Now flip the coin and hop into one of the fighters on the intercept and it's not EASY to get kills, you have to use your head and not expose yourself to fire for too long.. HOWEVER there is no such thing as a quick burst engineblastingpilotkill as you make a high speed 6 O'clock attack.

We all know that the accuracy of AI gunners in this game is beyond the scope of rediculous. It's one of the reasons why when I'm up in my HE111/JU88/JU87/B25 etc.. I man the gun positions to throw in a little "human" factor into the mix... I still shoot down fighters, but only the guys that park themselves 200m off my 6 at low speed.

Granted, when I fly a fighter and come across a bomber my inexperience in "hot rods" sometimes gets the best of me.. However it is frustrating as all hell to come diving down on the bomber at 700kph, with a high angle of attack and 'BAM BAM BAM' there goes my engine or PK. Sorry.. I don't care if Sgt York himself was behind one of those guns.. not going to happen with a quick burst.

But.. I am preaching to the choir. Any of us who have spent any kind of time with this Simulator know that the AI in it is jacked up in more ways than one.

BfHeFwMe
02-21-2006, 09:41 PM
B-25's were notorious for upper turrent failures. The Doolittle raiders had near 100% failure in the group, the turrent was the only defensive guns on board. The tail had black painted broomsticks and all other mg's were stripped, which by the way fooled at least one interceptor to back off.

Online if I get a damage ping from a silver bullet, or pilot gets a wounding head shot to where I can still barely control, my last act is to ram and fireball that bomber. If they whine, just tell them, hey, was your gunner that caused it all, had no controls. LoL

Revenge does sweeten out the deal at times. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Stafroty
02-22-2006, 12:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
Stigler, why dont you show us how uber the gunners are by going online in a bomber. I want to see how many you can take down just by relying on the AI gunners http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Tracks please.

Stafroty i used to fly bombers a lot on GG, mainly Stuka. The avarage hit% of AI was around 2 - 3 % from stats. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AI hits after it has shot some 97-98 rounds.

Stafroty
02-22-2006, 12:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
ppl dont have the patience todo head on attacks </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bingo! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

not so bingo.

Stafroty
02-22-2006, 01:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LUFT11_Hoflich:


Also.. why some LW gun camera films you see attacking from dead 6" rear gunner, ball turret and top gunner seem like theyre not firing as the LW aircraft is shooting from very close and indiscriminately, only breaks off just not to collide. ???

H¶f... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well obviously cos the ones killed by gunners didnt make it home to develop the film...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Heres a fun excerpt from "Luftwaffe aces" by F. Kurowski page 9:

"Spitfire from five o'clock, range 400...300..250! That was the signal for Helbig to turn; the enemy fighter would surely open fire at any moment. Helbig hauled the Ju-88 around in a steep turn. The Spitfire opened fire but the burst passed to the bombers right. At that instant Schlund opened fire with his machine gun. The pursuing Spitfire flew into the long burst. Flames pouring from its engine, it veered off. Helbig then swung the bomber back to the right. Unable to stay behind the Ju-88, the next Spitfire roared past. It was also hit several times and, like its predocessor, it veered off trailing smoke."

Note how Schlund fires and hits the Spitfires while Helbig is making evasive maneouvers. Something Stigler claims was impossible.

Or... maybe Schlund was one of them ubergunners i keep hearing so much about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


you seem to forget, that counter maneuver were started at estimated 250m distance, spit shot at empty space, flew closer and Ju88 was flying at one direction, spit would now be Quite a close, i ASSUME at some 100m or less, just making it for next shooting window, stayin still behind Ju88 for shooting it down, its close, easy there to shot at it. I understand, that you think, that spit stayed at that 250m distance just because there wasnt any more numbers for distance, it HAD to brake up at that given distance, right?

Stafroty
02-22-2006, 01:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
I've never barrel rolled a B-25 so I cannot comment - all I know is my **** gunners get killed all the time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

you should expect them to die, if there is E-Fighters close and you are alone..

Stafroty
02-22-2006, 01:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TX-Zen:
I don't play the game for points and I don't play the game to shoot down bombers. I don't enjoy looking around for bombers so I can run up an easy score...what kind of fun is that? Some online guy went to all the trouble to start up all those engines, taxi, get to altitude and fly all the way to where ever he is and then I come in with a 3 second burst to make him start all over...sorry, not really my cup of tea.

I've been on the other side numerous times in the HE111, Ju87 and the B25 too. I personally like flying bombers when the mood strikes me......but cmon, lets have some common sense shall we? Thats all I'm saying. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


yea, Bombers now dont need much fighter cover, fighters more likely need bomber cover.

But its clearly seen what p-11.cAce is driving behind, own advantage, he wont want to get killed in bomber so often. But ill give an tip, arrange an squadron, where you have many bombers, as well escort fighters for them.

In DF servers, its pretty stupidious for fighter to attack bomber, as it most of the cases, no matter what tactics are used, you get black nose of bullet in the head, I myself avoid bombers, most of the time, just because of that, and i can go online with you attacking you with fighter and givin you hard time, without sitting in your tail. its game balancing what makes it so. No one would not fly bombers if they would be modelled more realistically, as, in DF rooms, no one much doesnt care if they die or not http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif we dont have that realism factor, well on Warclouds we have, but still its 3 deaths/kick.

F19_Olli72
02-22-2006, 02:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stafroty:
yea, Bombers now dont need much fighter cover, fighters more likely need bomber cover.

In DF servers, its pretty stupidious for fighter to attack bomber, as it most of the cases, no matter what tactics are used, you get black nose of bullet in the head. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then im sorry to say you have only used wrong tactics.

Ok now that its clearified Stafroty is talking about ONLINE AI gunners...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
Olli, you consistantly confuse the issue between ai gunners on human-crewed aircraft and pure ai aircraft gunners offline.

They are clearly two different things.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can go back to my question: Stafroty, you dont happen to have a track of these ubergunners online? If gunners are so good, you should easily get many kills flying a bomber right? Whats the hit % of AI? I understand Warclouds have stats and that sort of thing...

Or we could do a quick test on a private server.

F19_Olli72
02-22-2006, 02:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stafroty:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LUFT11_Hoflich:


Also.. why some LW gun camera films you see attacking from dead 6" rear gunner, ball turret and top gunner seem like theyre not firing as the LW aircraft is shooting from very close and indiscriminately, only breaks off just not to collide. ???

H¶f... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well obviously cos the ones killed by gunners didnt make it home to develop the film...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Heres a fun excerpt from "Luftwaffe aces" by F. Kurowski page 9:

"Spitfire from five o'clock, range 400...300..250! That was the signal for Helbig to turn; the enemy fighter would surely open fire at any moment. Helbig hauled the Ju-88 around in a steep turn. The Spitfire opened fire but the burst passed to the bombers right. At that instant Schlund opened fire with his machine gun. The pursuing Spitfire flew into the long burst. Flames pouring from its engine, it veered off. Helbig then swung the bomber back to the right. Unable to stay behind the Ju-88, the next Spitfire roared past. It was also hit several times and, like its predocessor, it veered off trailing smoke."

Note how Schlund fires and hits the Spitfires while Helbig is making evasive maneouvers. Something Stigler claims was impossible.

Or... maybe Schlund was one of them ubergunners i keep hearing so much about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


you seem to forget, that counter maneuver were started at estimated 250m distance, spit shot at empty space, flew closer and Ju88 was flying at one direction, spit would now be Quite a close, i ASSUME at some 100m or less, just making it for next shooting window, stayin still behind Ju88 for shooting it down, its close, easy there to shot at it. I understand, that you think, that spit stayed at that 250m distance just because there wasnt any more numbers for distance, it HAD to brake up at that given distance, right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wrong.

I never stated anything about distance, that quote from the book was meant as a comment about Stiglers assumption that gunners simply was incapable to shoot while bombers were maneuvering. To refresh memory:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
a) flying sideways or backwards
b) having a gun on a swivel, subject to g-forces
c)not controlling, or being able to anticipate even the slightest movements of the plane that the pilot makes
d) the gun's recoil (they're not mounted, like that of the fixed forward guns)

means that the AI uses its infallible information (this same source is providing you with the entire sim experience, remember) to create ridiculously accurate unreal gunnery. Never a hit on the fuselage or the wings, or a tailplane...nope...right into the engine, or the canopy....EVERY TIME. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Specially this quote (below), didnt Helbig make just such a break turn? And Schlund was still able to not only anticipate the bombers movements, but also to track and shoot down not only one but two Spitfires (note that he hit both in engine area, something very difficult according to Stigler):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
And it can do this while the plane is in a break turn or upside down in a barrel roll.
Ludicrous and ridiculous. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:

However, it is STILL true that the gunners are unrealistically accurate in their ability to hit, their ability to aim when their aircraft is maneuvering, and their hit PLACEMENT. This third factor is the most damning, because way, way too often, the first hit cripples an attacking plane, and that just isn't how it was by anyone's estimation.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kuna_
02-22-2006, 04:29 AM
My opinion is that there should be some recoil when gun is fired and also bomber gunner defence is effective more in game than it was in ww2.

LUFT11_Hoflich
02-22-2006, 08:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TX-Zen:
Yet people expect to climb in a B25 in this game and then expect to have even the slightest chance of making it back to base just because they have numerous machine guns all over their plane? I think in real life it's pretty well established that a lone B17 was easy pickings for a single 109...the B17 naturally has considerably more machine guns and damage resistance than a B25 and it was considered easy prey by a single fighter....why would we expect anything different in the sim? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree...

Specially when you see pilots using B25's as fighters at low altitude in the middle of a furball, with all the guns firing accurately at diferent fighters nearby.

My problem with the B25 is that is the only american or british flyable bomber. So you can't set up a good '39 - 40' 41' mission with an allied early-war bomber, but if they had the blenheim or other early war bombers....

Anyway.. why is that allies don't have much variety of flyable bombers?


H¶f...

Waldo.Pepper
02-22-2006, 09:57 AM
We all know somthing is wrong.

Really its true. Ir's ok to say so too!

Here I'll try it again. Something is wrong. The gunners are still too accurate. There I said it and the world did not end.

Now there are two things you can do about it. B1tch and agitate until it get it changed, or modify you tactics (approach) to take the situation into account.

All bombers are easy meat if you have the right tool for the right job and take your time to attack them properly. Did anyone notice that from below a B-25 has no gun?

JtD
02-22-2006, 10:08 AM
Last time I tested I shot 8 bandits with manual gunnery while my AI gunners would never get more than 3 in the same setup.

Last times I used proper tactics online and got hit, it were human controlled guns.

Treetop64
02-22-2006, 10:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
Most bombers in this game are all but helpless, and are EASY KILLS, if you conduct your attack - properly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ditto.

If you're positioning yourself behind a bomber, throttling back while trimming your AC to aim exactly dead-on, then you present an easy target to the gunners. Period. I learned - the hard way - not to do that. Especially when flying a liquid-cooled AC.

I've had far more successes, and have almost never been hit, since changing my tactics. Instead of coming up from straight behind going for the easy shot, (and getting myself shot up in the process), I'll do what the AI does, and dive down on the formations from altitude. Some bombers have no protection underneath, so I would come up and hit the belly.

Sometimes, I will even circle around the formations, and dive down on them from the front at an angle, or straight dead-on.

Yes, the resultant deflection shots are more difficult, but 9 times out of 10 you'll go home clean and smoke-free!

Stafroty
02-22-2006, 11:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stafroty:
yea, Bombers now dont need much fighter cover, fighters more likely need bomber cover.

In DF servers, its pretty stupidious for fighter to attack bomber, as it most of the cases, no matter what tactics are used, you get black nose of bullet in the head. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then im sorry to say you have only used wrong tactics.

Ok now that its clearified Stafroty is talking about ONLINE AI gunners...


****Offline ive tested it last time, can come to test with you it as well. if you have time. i think you already know me as pilot, but if you want to test it anyway, im in. Page in Hyperlobby at name Stafroty. Offline ,you need to put 4 B17G bombers, they still have that 2-3% chance to hit you, no matter what you do http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif its all mathematical.
one need to turn continuously to prevent his from AI gunners, as, they calculate some short bursts just at right place, even at long range, if you move, those shots miss propably. its just propabily an issue.****

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
Olli, you consistantly confuse the issue between ai gunners on human-crewed aircraft and pure ai aircraft gunners offline.

They are clearly two different things.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can go back to my question: Stafroty, you dont happen to have a track of these ubergunners online? If gunners are so good, you should easily get many kills flying a bomber right? Whats the hit % of AI? I understand Warclouds have stats and that sort of thing...

****AI gunners arent as close deadly, as are boys with mouse aiming.****

Or we could do a quick test on a private server. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

**yes we can** tomorrow.

Stafroty
02-22-2006, 11:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Olli72:

"Spitfire from five o'clock, range 400...300..250! That was the signal for Helbig to turn; the enemy fighter would surely open fire at any moment. Helbig hauled the Ju-88 around in a steep turn. The Spitfire opened fire but the burst passed to the bombers right. At that instant Schlund opened fire with his machine gun. The pursuing Spitfire flew into the long burst. Flames pouring from its engine, it veered off. Helbig then swung the bomber back to the right. Unable to stay behind the Ju-88, the next Spitfire roared past. It was also hit several times and, like its predocessor, it veered off trailing smoke."
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

***i think you understood that wrong.
Gunner opened fire After evasive maneuver were done:

"The Spitfire opened fire but the burst passed to the bombers right. At that instant Schlund opened fire with his machine gun."

you can understand that when Spit was correctin his aim, He was getting closer to Ju88, so clsoe that gunner had no problems to score hits on him, maybe spit was so close, that it could not anymore aim at Bomber without colliding witht the Ju88. Its just how you want to see and understand that quote, it does not explain any more clear.
also:

"Unable to stay behind the Ju-88, the next Spitfire roared past. It was also hit several times and, like its predocessor, it veered off trailing smoke."

this can be understood in many ways, in a way, that bomber really was more maneuverable than spit. Or that Ju88 pilot was just smarter. what ever way.
It might been the wingman of the first spit, which caught in fire cause of defencive fire, the later spit (wingman) wasnt anymore payin so much attention to bomber than to friends spit, that does his Friend make it out from that spit alive, thats the first what would get in someones mind, getting worried about friend.
Or, Ju88 was so slow, that spit was not able to follow it in maneuver of Scissor style, overshooting near bomber, again, gunner was aware of the situation, and, when course was corrected back at original direction, Gunner started to fire.***

Stafroty
02-22-2006, 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 Waldo.Pepper:
We all know somthing is wrong.

Really its true. Ir's ok to say so too!

Here I'll try it again. Something is wrong. The gunners are still too accurate. There I said it and the world did not end.

Now there are two things you can do about it. B1tch and agitate until it get it changed, or modify you tactics (approach) to take the situation into account.

All bombers are easy meat if you have the right tool for the right job and take your time to attack them properly. Did anyone notice that from below a B-25 has no gun? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

you secure here own advantage? seems you like to fly with bombers, and get tired if get shot down.

F19_Olli72
02-22-2006, 03:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stafroty:
i think you understood that wrong.
Gunner opened fire After evasive maneuver were done:

"The Spitfire opened fire but the burst passed to the bombers right. At that instant Schlund opened fire with his machine gun." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No i understood it perfectly correct. Where does it say he stopped the turn? It be illogical and plain stupid to stop making evasive maneouvers before the enemy opens fire. My impression is that you think Helbig did the following:

# Steep turn
# Fly straight
# Shoot Spitfire
# Reverse turn
# Fly straight
# Shoot Spitfire 2

This is how i see it the sequence:

# Steep turn
# Shoot Spitfire
# Reverse turn
# Shoot Spitfire 2

Which one seems more likely? Imo its definatly the last one. May i ask how you execute breakturns and scissors online?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stafroty:
you can understand that when Spit was correctin his aim, He was getting closer to Ju88, so clsoe that gunner had no problems to score hits on him, maybe spit was so close, that it could not anymore aim at Bomber without colliding witht the Ju88. Its just how you want to see and understand that quote, it does not explain any more clear. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I understand. But what i dont understand is why you keep talking about distances. I repeat:

I never stated anything about distance, that quote from the book was meant as a comment about Stiglers assumption that gunners simply was incapable to shoot while bombers were maneuvering. To refresh memory:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
a) flying sideways or backwards
b) having a gun on a swivel, subject to g-forces
c)not controlling, or being able to anticipate even the slightest movements of the plane that the pilot makes
d) the gun's recoil (they're not mounted, like that of the fixed forward guns)

means that the AI uses its infallible information (this same source is providing you with the entire sim experience, remember) to create ridiculously accurate unreal gunnery. Never a hit on the fuselage or the wings, or a tailplane...nope...right into the engine, or the canopy....EVERY TIME. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stafroty:

"Unable to stay behind the Ju-88, the next Spitfire roared past. It was also hit several times and, like its predocessor, it veered off trailing smoke."

this can be understood in many ways, in a way, that bomber really was more maneuverable than spit. Or that Ju88 pilot was just smarter. what ever way.
It might been the wingman of the first spit, which caught in fire cause of defencive fire, the later spit (wingman) wasnt anymore payin so much attention to bomber than to friends spit, that does his Friend make it out from that spit alive, thats the first what would get in someones mind, getting worried about friend.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE> Well thats just pure speculation aint it? Neither you, me, the author or Schlund knows what the second Spitfire pilot was thinking. But when someone is shooting at you i reckon thats your first priority.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stafroty:
Or, Ju88 was so slow, that spit was not able to follow it in maneuver of Scissor style, overshooting near bomber, again, gunner was aware of the situation, and, when course was corrected back at original direction, Gunner started to fire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well thats exactly what Stigler think gunners were unable to do:

"c)not controlling, or being able to anticipate even the slightest movements of the plane that the pilot makes"

I would say a breakturn or scissor is more than a slight movement, wouldnt you?

Stafroty
02-23-2006, 12:26 AM
Olli,
Those earlier things what was in Quote you first quoted, its just assuming how things were, we can fight about it to the worlds end, still without really knowing What really happened there, even when you would get chance to ask what happened you would not understand it, even it it would been filmed, you would not understand it,as, you would See only what there is captrured on Film, nothing more, nothing behind the camera etc. But, sure, it would make you so sure. how can you be sure how close that spit was on that bomber when evasive maneuver was done, can you understand, that spit was cming faster then what bomber was flying, it was gaining. so, suddenly, he isnt. What if after evasive maneuver, spit pilot could not anymore point his guns towards bomber, if he would, it would have lead to collision, maybe he calculated it so in his head, or are you sure how he thought that thing? mayb he got distracted because of evasive maneuver, there is thousands of possibilities, and you need only one, whihc, the truth you will never know.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I never stated anything about distance, that quote from the book was meant as a comment about Stiglers assumption that gunners simply was incapable to shoot while bombers were maneuvering. To refresh memory: </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maneuvering can be understood many ways, when you turn car to right to the left, can you in same time, hold your hand still?

What if you do continuous turn at one direction? i think: when you start the turn, your hand moves, but when you get used to turn and G forces(inertia whatever) you can again point your hand whatever direction even if car still is turning, IF its same rate of turning with same speed.
now, take .50cal on one hardpoint, which you aim only with the powers of your own hand on that car, the recoil what it makes, should be totally necleted because of the hard point? that you can hose with it with pinpoint accuracy like in game? sure.

"Well thats just pure speculation aint it? Neither you, me, the author or Schlund knows what the second Spitfire pilot was thinking. But when someone is shooting at you i reckon thats your first priority."

are you speculating? what if someone is shooting at you after he shot your friend in flames, what would happen in your mind maybe? bit panic as your REAL life would be in danger?
Priority isnt the same as what happened or might have happened. In your way of thinking, it is possible to outmaneuver spits with Ju88 right because spit pilots were known all the time about the priorities like home computer, with no emotions. so they should Know what to do in what place, and did know, right?

Viper_42
02-23-2006, 01:18 AM
Hey Olli, I have that book too! Just finished up with the part about Otto WeiB.

But on topic, it seems to me that a lot of pilots seem to put the blame on "wrong tactics" and "makes it fair for online play and makes up for the game's limits".

Well for me, the game can have its limits and I can be doing the wrong tactics but the fact still lies that the gunners are far to accurate regardless of my tactics. IMO Zen put up the best argument. He obviously had exp. with .50 cals and can one not assume that if you're on the ground and the aiming isn't sniper-like that if you're up in the air, cold, and turbulence shaking your aim that it'll be worse?

I mean seriously people, if you don't like being shot down on online servers because you're flying a bomber by yourself then don't do it! Don't tell everyone else that that's the reason the gunners have to be accurate and that everone elses tactics are wrong.

I fly on the HISTORIA server often and 10/10 times when I attack a bomber formation even when it's from the top at 600 kph and all that good stuff I still get hit. The reason I die though is because I stray just a little bit from making the steepest dives and the quickest passes after my 2nd try. As previously stated, if the gunners were this accurate in RL then fighter pilots would have some serious problems. I mean I would understand if the formation is just spraying out a hail of bullets and I get nailed by maybe three bullets from 3 gunners but I get hit by EVERY gunner as soon as I get into their accuracy range.

To me, from day 1 I've always noticed the extreme skill of AI gunners. I don't expect anything to be done about it and I will realize that bombers are going to stay this way for now and that I have to change my tactics but once the problem is realized and understood then maybe we can fix it in a patch or not have the same problem in future games.

Holy sh** it's 12:20 AM and I have to wake up at 6:00 AM in the morning. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

I'm going to regret reading this post until 12 when I'm at school haha.