PDA

View Full Version : Guns effectiveness question



TungstenKid
02-19-2011, 06:36 PM
Hi,I've been playing various combat flight sims for 30 years and recently bought IL-1946 (patched to 4.10) and am surprised by the weakness of aircraft guns compared to other sims I've played, or is it just me doing something wrong?
On the 'Realistic gunnery' setting I find it's almost impossible to hit a tight-manoeuvring fighter target with deflection shots, you have to get into its 6 o' clock to bring it down.
Furthermore you have to get real close before your bullets/shells have any effect.
Problem is, you often can't get close in a typical dogfight, and have to spend most of the mission chasing distant aircraft around and firing at long range.
I've tried toggling Realistic gunnery OFF and it improves things slightly, but deflection shots are still very difficult and often a waste of ammo.
Maybe I'm using the wrong gunsight?
Any advice?
Thanks

TungstenKid
02-19-2011, 06:36 PM
Hi,I've been playing various combat flight sims for 30 years and recently bought IL-1946 (patched to 4.10) and am surprised by the weakness of aircraft guns compared to other sims I've played, or is it just me doing something wrong?
On the 'Realistic gunnery' setting I find it's almost impossible to hit a tight-manoeuvring fighter target with deflection shots, you have to get into its 6 o' clock to bring it down.
Furthermore you have to get real close before your bullets/shells have any effect.
Problem is, you often can't get close in a typical dogfight, and have to spend most of the mission chasing distant aircraft around and firing at long range.
I've tried toggling Realistic gunnery OFF and it improves things slightly, but deflection shots are still very difficult and often a waste of ammo.
Maybe I'm using the wrong gunsight?
Any advice?
Thanks

Zeus-cat
02-19-2011, 07:28 PM
Your comment is fairly common from someone new to IL-2. The gun damage is probably more realistic than most sims, but this is just my opinion.

Anyway, you need to hit an enemy plane in its weak spots just like in real life. Last week I downed four enemy aircraft in one mission (would have had # five, but I got greedy and stalled at low level and hit a tree). We were flying Russian aircraft (P-40? against Germans), so I had the "pathetic" 50 caliber guns. My hit rate that mission was 170/1880 or about 9%. That is a phenomenal hit rate; I used to be at 1 or 2%.

You need to get in close, aim at a weak spot and fire short bursts. Go for the pilot, wingtips, control surfaces, gas tanks, etc. Weak spots vary by plane, so there is no magic formula.

M2morris
02-19-2011, 07:55 PM
You can go back and watch a track and get a close-up of your fifty caliber bullets hitting an enemy plane and see as the hits only make little flashes on the aluminum skin with no damage taking place. AAAAAAAAAA! Fifty cal stuff again!!! sorry.
Use an F4U1C corsair or something else with big guns, then you can blow the crap out of stuff better.
I'm a crappy dog fighter so thats what I need. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Bremspropeller
02-19-2011, 08:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Anyway, you need to hit an enemy plane in its weak spots just like in real life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The difference being that planes IRL have a lot more weak spots than in-game.

M_Gunz
02-19-2011, 08:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TungstenKid:
Hi,I've been playing various combat flight sims for 30 years and recently bought IL-1946 (patched to 4.10) and am surprised by the weakness of aircraft guns compared to other sims I've played, or is it just me doing something wrong?
On the 'Realistic gunnery' setting I find it's almost impossible to hit a tight-manoeuvring fighter target with deflection shots, you have to get into its 6 o' clock to bring it down.
Furthermore you have to get real close before your bullets/shells have any effect.
Problem is, you often can't get close in a typical dogfight, and have to spend most of the mission chasing distant aircraft around and firing at long range.
I've tried toggling Realistic gunnery OFF and it improves things slightly, but deflection shots are still very difficult and often a waste of ammo.
Maybe I'm using the wrong gunsight?
Any advice?
Thanks </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Deflection shots are possible from a good ways back if he keeps on the same curve for a few seconds but they take practice and review to see where the shots go. Once you know where the shots are going and the rate they travel, it gets predictable from trigger to maybe one second out which ain't all straight on the pipper.

For practice missions, edit conf.ini in your IL2 folder to make this:

[game]
Arcade=0

into this:

[game]
Arcade=1

and your strikes will show as white dots that stay a good few seconds. You will know when and where you do hit and you can get a feel for how long the shot travels under the conditions of your shot.

Be sure to make a track of the practice shooting, the kind of track you start and end from inside the mission (they play back more true). Play them back with Arcade=1 and you will see arrows form on the target showing hit angles. The arrows only show paths, do not mean the shot went clear through and if they explode there will be smaller arrows showing shrapnel paths. During track playback you can control time and POV. So you watch your plane come up towards the shot, slow the motion down and watch the sight picture and instruments (especially The Ball or Slip Needle in Spits) using pause as necessary right up to when it starts shooting then pause that and have a good look. Change POV to the target and rotate the view to see both target and your plane firing at the same time. How close you can miss is a whole education in itself. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif The 'why' may be anything from slip angle to ballistic arc above or below the sight-line to timing. Track review is the same kind of feedback that sports pros (and serious amateurs) use to fine-tune their moves and hey, it can work.

----- WARNING! below here is trivia ----------

IL2 ballistics includes initial vectors of the movement of the plane on the shots, a random dispersion vector to simulate vibration depending on where the gun is mounted as well as air friction and gravity. Impact includes relative speed of shot and target, angle of strike, mass of the projectile and explosive/incendiary 'power'. However the part hit must be completely destroyed, it has hit points, before the shot can go forward always straight to the next part. That is all that a home PC was capable of when the game engine was made and TBH it is a lot however imperfect. But the upshot is that a piece of tail gear or other chunk behind the pilot's seat can soak a few close hits each. Of course if one is an oxygen or fuel tank then you can get a kaboom! Still good deflection hits go through much less obstacle and even 303's from over 200m can cripple or kill on one pass... note the word 'can'. Also, go for the engine as pilot and crew hit boxes are very small if the NEW (4.10) realism toggle is left off and always were prior to that. You had to either be really good or really lucky or close and pouring on shots or... an AI bomber gunner with a following target who's kept a steady path maybe 2+ full seconds to get a PK. Count on the AI to do it.

IL2 gunnery is just less shortcut than older sims but consider what it runs on. You've watched 30 years of FS improvements concurrent with 30 years of hardware improvements. You should know that RL is different (not necessarily harder) than anything a PC can model with a full combat sim load at playable frame rates as well.

M_Gunz
02-19-2011, 09:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Anyway, you need to hit an enemy plane in its weak spots just like in real life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The difference being that planes IRL have a lot more weak spots than in-game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IRL a bullet can pass through one part without having to destroy the whole part and go to hit another part or pilot/crew.

M_Gunz
02-19-2011, 09:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M2morris:
You can go back and watch a track and get a close-up of your fifty caliber bullets hitting an enemy plane and see as the hits only make little flashes on the aluminum skin with no damage taking place. AAAAAAAAAA! Fifty cal stuff again!!! sorry. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Visible damage is by limited number of graphics representations so you don't see holes in the plane because a few bullet strikes, even from the mighty tank-killer 50's.

sarcasm ON:
Besides, we all know that IRL all hits meant big damage and no one ever made it back with bullet holes in their plane unless it was a P-47 of course!
sarcasm left ON:

I was at a local diner the other day. There was a sign that said "I don't need your attitude. I have one of my own!".

TungstenKid
02-19-2011, 09:44 PM
Thanks guys I hear what you're saying, but at the moment (PARTY POOPER WARNING) I'm unimpressed with the ballistics and 3D scaling, so unless it grows on me, the game remains only second on my list of favourite sims (CFS2 is top).
PS- By 'scaling' I mean the slight 'looking down the wrong end of a telescope' effect that makes planes appear too far away.
(CFS2 doesn't suffer from that effect)
PS- check out my IL-1946 review and sensational screenshots at the Few Good Men club,(I'm PoorOldSpike over there)-

http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/t...Sturmovik-1946/page7 (http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/showthread.php?770-IL-Sturmovik-1946/page7)

WTE_Galway
02-19-2011, 10:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TungstenKid:
Thanks guys I hear what you're saying, but at the moment (PARTY POOPER WARNING) I'm unimpressed with the ballistics and 3D scaling, so unless it grows on me, the game remains only second on my list of favourite sims (CFS2 is top).
PS- By 'scaling' I mean the slight 'looking down the wrong end of a telescope' effect that makes planes appear too far away.
(CFS2 doesn't suffer from that effect)
PS- check out my IL-1946 review and sensational screenshots at the Few Good Men club,(I'm PoorOldSpike over there)-

http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/t...Sturmovik-1946/page7 (http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/showthread.php?770-IL-Sturmovik-1946/page7) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Certianly if your after an arcade shootem-up experience CFS2 will suit you a lot better but sometimes its worth pursuing the more challenging option.

If you have played a lot of CFS2 you are probably at a disadvantage playing IL2 compared to even a noob to combat flight sims as you likely have learnt a lot of bad habits.

There are numerous things you need to do in IL2 to defection shoot well including acquire good range estimation skills and always centering the ball when shooting however if you do decide to stick with it, here are two suggestion to improve deflection gunnery:

a) practice shooting at quarter speed and watch carefully for gun flashes
b) record your practice sessions as a track and go back and view from the target perspective

gothkrieger
02-19-2011, 10:36 PM
Yeah, I still suck at shooting, umm, everything LOL. Trying to put in the time to learn. Deflection is difficult for me to begin with due to fact that I find that canopy struts block out vision for me long enough that I am not lined up or timed properly. Still have a hard enough time shooting them from the 6, never mind deflections.

Bremspropeller
02-20-2011, 06:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">IRL a bullet can pass through one part without having to destroy the whole part and go to hit another part or pilot/crew. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And IRL there's a lot more to go off, burn, fail, etc.

Fuel lines/ tanks
Oil lines/ tanks
Coolant lines/ tanks
Oxygen lines/ tanks
Hydraulic lines/ reservoirs
Electric cables/ actuators
Battery
Ammunition
Nav equipment
Radio
Control cables/ rods

And last but not least: the crew.

Erkki_M
02-20-2011, 06:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TungstenKid:
Hi,I've been playing various combat flight sims for 30 years and recently bought IL-1946 (patched to 4.10) and am surprised by the weakness of aircraft guns compared to other sims I've played, or is it just me doing something wrong?
On the 'Realistic gunnery' setting I find it's almost impossible to hit a tight-manoeuvring fighter target with deflection shots, you have to get into its 6 o' clock to bring it down.
Furthermore you have to get real close before your bullets/shells have any effect.
Problem is, you often can't get close in a typical dogfight, and have to spend most of the mission chasing distant aircraft around and firing at long range.
I've tried toggling Realistic gunnery OFF and it improves things slightly, but deflection shots are still very difficult and often a waste of ammo.
Maybe I'm using the wrong gunsight?
Any advice?
Thanks </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The guns are not ineffective, none of them(not even Breda SAFAT anymore). If you dont see planes going down, thats because you don't hit them. Even the US .50 cals many people whine about being nerfed/underpowered can kill anything in one burst, depending on your aim. Even a B-29.

You dont need to park yourself at anyones six either... But if you're used to games like CFS, AHII, WB, il2 is certainly way more realistic, and thus more difficult.

DD_crash
02-20-2011, 07:40 AM
one of my squad mates (Fruitbat) posted a video track (http://www.youtube.com/user/thefruitbat111#p/u/20/FCrKtHHXPLc) You need to practice a lot http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Erkki_M
02-20-2011, 07:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DD_crash:
one of my squad mates (Fruitbat) posted a video track (http://www.youtube.com/user/thefruitbat111#p/u/20/FCrKtHHXPLc) You need to practice a lot http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some "flying" of mine from Saturday morning too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRg7YFnqFmY

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

M_Gunz
02-20-2011, 07:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TungstenKid:
PS- By 'scaling' I mean the slight 'looking down the wrong end of a telescope' effect that makes planes appear too far away.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you learned to use the view zoom keys yet?

Xiolablu3
02-20-2011, 08:02 AM
IL2 is simply far, far more realistic than CFS2.

You will obviously find it much harder to shoot down planes in IL2.

Bullets drop as per real life. Bullets lose energy on the way to the target. Cannon shells dont so much as they are explosive.

Real pilots usually set their weapons for around 200 metres in WW2.(IN the BOB even less) So if you are shooting at anything above .20 on the onscreen icons then you are out of the average 'realistic' window of shooting.

Which plane are you talking about specifically. I cannot imagine oyu are having trouble shooting anything down with a FW190A6 for example (4x20mm and 2 machine guns)

Are you talking specifically of just the machine gun armed planes, or both the cannon AND machine gun armed planes&gt;?

AT a guess I think you are far too used to arcadey flight games if you cannot even get close to the enemy. You need to learn about real air fighting and specifically ENERGY and how to use it in a fight. If you are in a slower aircraft and are lower, then it may simply not be possible to catch the enemy - thats just real life.

Remember - just because a plane has a faster maximum top speed on paper than your opponent, that doesnt mean its faster at the height you are fighting at. Maximum paper top speeds are very misleading.

Watch this to show you what is possible with some practice :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...MsB0qAqo&feature=fvw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpBMsB0qAqo&feature=fvw)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...o5R4&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3HS1UJo5R4&feature=related)

Can anyone post that 'six fifties' video showing how to shoot with the P51? I cant find it on youtube anywhere.

thefruitbat
02-20-2011, 09:56 AM
practise http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<span class="flash-video"><object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000"
codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=8,0,0,0"
height="750"
width="1280"
><param name="wmode"
value="transparent"
></param><param name="allowScriptAccess"
value="never"
></param><param value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MzT6eKV4pzo?fs=1&amp;hl=en_GB&amp;hd=1"
name="movie"
/><param value="true"
/><param value="always"
/><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash"
pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"
allowScriptAccess="never"
wmode="transparent"
height="750"
width="1280"
src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MzT6eKV4pzo?fs=1&amp;hl=en_GB&amp;hd=1"
/></object></span>

and

<span class="flash-video"><object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000"
codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=8,0,0,0"
height="750"
width="1280"
><param name="wmode"
value="transparent"
></param><param name="allowScriptAccess"
value="never"
></param><param value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qMiiMvnQm1I?fs=1&amp;hl=en_GB&amp;hd=1"
name="movie"
/><param value="true"
/><param value="always"
/><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash"
pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"
allowScriptAccess="never"
wmode="transparent"
height="750"
width="1280"
src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qMiiMvnQm1I?fs=1&amp;hl=en_GB&amp;hd=1"
/></object></span>

VW-IceFire
02-20-2011, 11:24 AM
If you find deflection gunnery to be a problem then I suggest two things:

1) Practice on large barely maneuvering targets like C-47s or Ju52s. Focus on hitting them from the sides and tops rather than lining up from behind.

2) If you're a P-51 fan then take out the P-51D-20 and enable the gyroscopic gunsight. There are guides available on how to use the gunsight but ultimately what it does is place a piper on where the bullets will be so you can hit enemy aircraft precisely. Effective use of this gunsight can really improve your perception of what damage can be done.

Also you should definitely make sure you have your convergence settings done correctly. Some people put them at 150 meters, I have mine at 280 meters and some put them a bit further out at 330 meters. But the in-game default of 500 meters is much too far out for effective gunnery when flying aircraft with wing mounted guns.

K_Freddie
02-20-2011, 01:24 PM
You will need rudder pedals for good deflection shooting as it allows you to make the small adjustments to get your bullets on target. My pedals are now broken, and I cannot shoot sh.it, even with an assigned button.
Before it took me one quick burst to tear off a major component or to do major damage.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Xiolablu3
02-20-2011, 03:12 PM
Incredible shooting fruitbat..

Those videos I posted from AFJ were the best shots of many sessions I am sure, yours are all one single sortie!

Salute!

WTE_Galway
02-20-2011, 03:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K_Freddie:
You will need rudder pedals for good deflection shooting as it allows you to make the small adjustments to get your bullets on target. My pedals are now broken, and I cannot shoot sh.it, even with an assigned button.
Before it took me one quick burst to tear off a major component or to do major damage.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really do not see how anyone can hit the side of a barn with a twist stick http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Rudder pedals, trackIR/freetrack and assigning zoom to my hat are essential for me.

The other essential skill is estimating range with icons off. The best guide to that is still the RAF WWII gunnery manual from 70 years ago ...

http://www.darts-page.com/files/b1.jpg

http://www.darts-page.com/files/b2.jpg

http://www.darts-page.com/files/b3.jpg

FlatSpinMan
02-20-2011, 08:18 PM
Nah, twist sticks are all you need! My old Saitek has served me loyally for years now. No programming, never check the axes anymore, just plug it in and go. Best $40 I spent on hardware. I'd like TrackIR one day, but my wife will divorce me the day I do out of sheer geekiness.

Sillius_Sodus
02-20-2011, 09:08 PM
Hello TungstenKid,

Welcome to the forums. I had a devil of the time at first with IL2 and like you, preferred CFS2. This sim can take a lot of time to master but if you stick with it I'm sure you'll come to enjoy it more than CFS2.

Gunnery was very tortuous at first, I found it easier to learn by turning off the cockpit and when in range, slowing down the sim to 1/4 speed in order to get an idea of how the ballistics worked. Turning off realistic gunnery triples the effectiveness of your rounds but will will eventually want to have it on all the time.

Here's the link to some good instructional videos on gunnery:

http://www.darts-page.com/

By the way, I enjoyed your posts on the Few Good Men forum, it's always nice to see a new bunch of players enjoying our obsession! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

M_Gunz
02-20-2011, 09:15 PM
Twist stick has worked for me though after a while it really wears me down between holding rudder and trying to work X and Y and keeping the weight of my arm off the stick. And I do a lot of shooting from over 200m when I do practice at all but very little correction-adjusting -- either the target is moving into the hit zone or I don't take the shot, adjusting much at all causes the nose to wobble. I fly smooth but adjust slowly or it's all over the place at those ranges.

Lurch1962
02-20-2011, 10:35 PM
To this day I occasionally fire up CFS2 (which, of the CFS line, is the vastly superior) for a little change of pace. One thing I can say with some authority, CFS2's ballistics are simpler. I suspect velocity decrease is not modeled, but I know that bullets do not scatter. When obtaining a good and steady tracking shot--even at 60-90 degrees of deflection--I can get practically EVERY bullet to hit for a surprisingly extended period across ranges of, say, 200m. In quick combat sessions where I take on wave after wave of ace fighters, I can obtain average hit rates of better than 50%! That's bloody unrealistic.

TungstenKid
02-20-2011, 11:53 PM
Thanks for the suggestions guys, let me just clarify that I don't dislike IL-1946,and I have no trouble shooting things down as my FGM screenshots prove-
http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/t...Sturmovik-1946/page7 (http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/showthread.php?770-IL-Sturmovik-1946/page7)
(I'm PoorOldSpike over there)

It's just that I find the ballistics take some getting used to.
Incidentally I fired up my old CFS2 again today after several months, and although I like the ballistics, the overall look of the game is ancient and crude compared to the polished appearance of IL-1946 so I uninstalled CFS2 and will stick with IL-1946 from now on..http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Sillius_Sodus
02-21-2011, 12:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TungstenKid:
Thanks for the suggestions guys, let me just clarify that I don't dislike IL-1946,and I have no trouble shooting things down as my FGM screenshots prove-
http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/t...Sturmovik-1946/page7 (http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/showthread.php?770-IL-Sturmovik-1946/page7)
(I'm PoorOldSpike over there)

It's just that I find the ballistics take some getting used to.
Incidentally I fired up my old CFS2 again today after several months, and although I like the ballistics, the overall look of the game is ancient and crude compared to the polished appearance of IL-1946 so I uninstalled CFS2 and will stick with IL-1946 from now on..http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well done that man! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

M_Gunz
02-21-2011, 02:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TungstenKid:
I uninstalled CFS2 and will stick with IL-1946 from now on..http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the first year or so of IL2 there were enough players who dumped CFS... they could have held conventions!

That's why there never was a CFS4.

K_Freddie
02-21-2011, 05:35 AM
Here's a V4.101 track from a campaign that I occasionally play. You can see the different effectiveness of the guns being in focus and not.. This is without rudder pedals and you can also see the lack of control in critical situations.
When you get it right, even the 50s are effective... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

V4.101 (6MB) (http://www.vanjast.com/IL2Pics/BitsNThings.ntrk)

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

TungstenKid
02-21-2011, 01:14 PM
Thanks guys, and incidentally another thread at the Few Good Men you might be interested in is this one started by Gaston-

http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/t...ed-Air-Force-quot-.. (http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/showthread.php?7275-Old-quot-Air-force-quot-Boardgame-re-vamped-with-latest-research-quot-Advanced-Air-Force-quot-..).

in which he says he's spent 14 years analysing real-life WW2 air combat by reading test pilot and veterans reports etc. He also tends to controversially think ALL computer flight sims are not very good, but that's just his opinion.
If any of you want to join in the discussion over there in that or any other threads,be my guest and join the club (I'm second in command for my sins..http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Xiolablu3
02-21-2011, 01:43 PM
Lmao , Gaston, dont mention that name here or you will get all sorts of replies.

Just search for any of his posts here, they are hilarious.

He absolutely maintained that the FW190 should outturn all other Western Front fighters at low speeds, despite all evidence to the contrary.

The Science and Testing by real WW2 testing stations shows that the FW190 had a high wing loading and also a poor horizontal turn radius compared to contemporary fighters, yet Gaston drew his own conclusions from pilot anecdotes to support his own warped theories. There are pages and pages of people explaining the science to him and him refusing to accept it.

Heres one of many such threads :-

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...283/m/7891055058/p/1 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/7891055058/p/1)

Gaston believes what he wants to believe while ignoring all science and evidence to the contrary. This is why he claims flight sims are 'wrong', as all his 'beliefs' go against the grain of science and airplane design.

Heres another 60 pager from Gaston with people trying hard to explain physics, science etc to him, to no avail...sigh

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...283/m/2221055328/p/1 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2221055328/p/1)

TungstenKid
02-21-2011, 02:24 PM
Aha, it seems Gaston has failed in his missionary quest to convert you heathen savages to his way of thinking and has now joined FGM to try to convert us tribe of heathens over there..http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WTE_Galway
02-21-2011, 03:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

Gaston believes what he wants to believe while ignoring all science and evidence to the contrary. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You do get some interesting variations on conventional physics in here.

One of the more curious to arise recently was the idea that gliders are propelled forward by lift and kept in the air by drag (and no we do not need to start another 45 page thread on that one).

M_Gunz
02-21-2011, 04:09 PM
I did Edit-&gt;Find on both 'stress' and 'risers' but didn't see either on. Maybe he's dropped that spiel or maybe he's saving it for later.

Seriously Tungsten, please do not vector that 'hat back over here! I beg you please! 14 years of studying WWII reports with zero understanding of physics or the simplest aerodynamics results in what the FGM forum is just getting a taste of. But I do have to say that the early posts in that thread encouraging him in his board game remake just showed him what fertile ground he had found for exploitation.

We used to have a CFS2 Ace here with similarly educated views who kept trying to prove that "IL2 does not model gravity" and some strange new flight physics on turns as well. One of his favorite shticks involved an F-86 vs MiG-15 doghouse chart workup comparison.

These guys have a pattern. They present their new improved science, it gets shot full of holes, a month or so later they present the same thing again, ad nauseum.

K_Freddie
02-22-2011, 11:11 AM
TungstenKid
With regard to Gaston, he was mainly extracting 'anecdotes' from pilots (reports) who for the most part, were not scientists proficient in aeronautical physics, and by the same token those here who profess to be aeronautical scientists, have never flown a fully laden WW2 combat aircraft.

So you can see, the chorus lines are to be taken with a large pinch of salt. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The game itself, I think Oleg has the relative aircraft performances close enough, for a great experience which most of us have had for years - this is where it's at.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Ba5tard5word
02-22-2011, 01:17 PM
There was a topic about gunnery not that long ago, I think someone exasperated about how weak .30 cals are. You should be able to find many topics here with advice about gunnery.

Best advice I can give is get in as close as possible, with practice you'll get better at aiming in general and how to avoid crashing into enemies. Get to around .150 with .30 cals and set convergence to 150. With .50 cals, get to at least around .200 before you start shooting, and use a convergence between 150 and 200, I like 180 as a compromise though I think getting in closer is more important than convergence. The closer you get, the more likely all your bullets will hit the enemy, and it definitely seems like they hit with more power than if you were further out. Get closer and you'll find your bullets do more damage.

I used to absolutely hate and loathe and avoid .30 cals but after trying to get in closer and not firing until I was around .150 out, I found they are way more effective. Some bombers are really tough though no matter what, so try and hit their engines or inner wings to try and trigger a wing fire or explosion.

(and when I say .150 or .200 I mean the metric number listed on the data you see on all planes, which shows how far you are, .150 means 150 meters...crazy how it looks so close but it's actually quite a lot of meters)

And twist rudders do suck but they do work if you get used to them. I used to use a Logitech 3D Extreme Pro, after a while I got used to it but I never liked using it to aim, my reticle would jump all over the place because of how imprecise the controls were. I got a CH stick which is much smoother and gives you much more control over small movements when you're aiming. I also got CH pedals which are way better but took a lot of getting used to. For one thing I didn't like how I was always twisting the rudder by mistake with the Logitech stick when in really intense maneuvers, which would throw me off a bit.

Xiolablu3
02-22-2011, 01:41 PM
I find a twisty rudder fine on a MSFFB Pro

gothkrieger
02-22-2011, 02:57 PM
My shooting still sucks, sometimes I wonder if my playing this sim is a matter of enjoyment or frustration. Have convergence set for 250m but most times I am up against the AI with the barrel rolls etc. Straight line shooting is at a premium. Then with zoom and boom, I find I miss my shot more often than not. I find those Russian bi-planes fairly hard to shoot down due to the fact of their ease in turning whenever you are getting closer. Every once in a while I do the review the playback to see what is happening, that helps to some degree. Getting it all correct is not easy but then I watch somebody’s track and see how accurate their shooting is and I know I have a long way to go.

gothkrieger
02-22-2011, 02:58 PM
Never mind deflection shooting, at 150m???? Yikes.

K_Freddie
02-22-2011, 03:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gothkrieger:
.. sometimes I wonder if my playing this sim is a matter of enjoyment or frustration. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Both I'd imagine... like the rest of us.

Some history...
- how do you start the engine ??? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif
- I cannot taxi
- How do you take off
- I can take off..whooooot!!
- I cannot find the enemy
- They always find me and shoot me down, I don't see them
- Where's the runway
- I cannot land.. (Sorry! forgot to lower the gear)
- Any landing you walk away from is a good one
- I landed today...YEAHHHH!!
- I cannot shoot anybody down.. the guns are BS
- The AI is UBER
- I shot one down online..... WHOOOOOOTTTTTTT!!
- I'm finally getting the feel of this
- Full Real is not Real Life ?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
- Somebody's cheating
- Nothing can out manouver a spit/yak/la.. he's cheating.
- The La outdived my FW/Me... the modelling's porked..
etc... etc ...etc

Welcome to a 'bad' habit! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WTE_Galway
02-22-2011, 03:23 PM
The parts of a bomber vulnerable to rifle calibre machine gun according to a 1930's French study (basically engines and pilot) :

http://users.telenet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/fgun/advcan.jpg



With regard to effective range here is an excerpt from an interview in the Bureau of Aeronautics (26 April 1943) with Captain Joe J. FOSS, Medal of Honor, USMC, Executive Officer, VMF-121. (26 victories, mainly flying Wildcats over Guadalcanal)



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Aircraft/VMF-121/


Q. How close do you have to come to do effective damage?

A. When we started out, all our shooting was out of range. We would begin on the enemy a quarter of a mile away, and by the time we actually got into range we'd used up our ammunition.

Then we started getting in there from 300 yards to 50 foot off, and really started hitting them. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Then we moved it down so that we'd shoot right at 100 yards - then you can't miss.</span> If you're off to one side or the other, just kick it on.

If you shoot too far off, you scare 'em! If you keep your tracers out of there - the Jap pilot shoots. I've seen him shoot half a mile off; they just keep shooting until they go on range, and they're still shooting when they pass you. They really get rid of the ammunition!

I talked to the boys when a new outfit would come in. When you talk to a man before he goes out the first time, it doesn't do any good; but after he's been out the first time or the first two times, then you can talk to him. He knows what you're talking about. I'd just tell them, "Get in there, really get them in your sights, and really shoot close." I told one group that, and every flight scored on the trip. They'd all had a couple of combats before; they were shooting away out of range - 500 or 600 yards.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ba5tard5word
02-22-2011, 04:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gothkrieger:
My shooting still sucks, sometimes I wonder if my playing this sim is a matter of enjoyment or frustration. Have convergence set for 250m but most times I am up against the AI with the barrel rolls etc. Straight line shooting is at a premium. Then with zoom and boom, I find I miss my shot more often than not. I find those Russian bi-planes fairly hard to shoot down due to the fact of their ease in turning whenever you are getting closer. Every once in a while I do the review the playback to see what is happening, that helps to some degree. Getting it all correct is not easy but then I watch somebody’s track and see how accurate their shooting is and I know I have a long way to go. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know what you mean about biplanes, they are very zippy and will maneuver all over the place and can be irritating. I would stick with fighting more, um, sober planes, maybe Hurricanes, Fairey Fulmars, etc, or going after bombers. Your aiming and maneuvering will improve and eventually you'll be able to deal with tiny mosquito-esque biplanes. And drop that convergence below 200 and get closer than .200 especially for any fighters!!!

raaaid
02-22-2011, 04:22 PM
something that makes delfection shooting more difficulat in il2 than it shoud is that smoke of thetracer has 1 tenth of second delay with respect to the bullet, a big bug never solved

most havent noticed this but 1 tenth means maybe missing by 20 m

WTE_Galway
02-22-2011, 04:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gothkrieger:
My shooting still sucks, sometimes I wonder if my playing this sim is a matter of enjoyment or frustration. Have convergence set for 250m but most times I am up against the AI with the barrel rolls etc. Straight line shooting is at a premium. Then with zoom and boom, I find I miss my shot more often than not. I find those Russian bi-planes fairly hard to shoot down due to the fact of their ease in turning whenever you are getting closer. Every once in a while I do the review the playback to see what is happening, that helps to some degree. Getting it all correct is not easy but then I watch somebody’s track and see how accurate their shooting is and I know I have a long way to go. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know what you mean about biplanes, they are very zippy and will maneuver all over the place and can be irritating. I would stick with fighting more, um, sober planes, maybe Hurricanes, Fairey Fulmars, etc, or going after bombers. Your aiming and maneuvering will improve and eventually you'll be able to deal with tiny mosquito-esque biplanes. And drop that convergence below 200 and get closer than .200 especially for any fighters!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Alternatively jump in your own biplane and set convergence to 0.05 for a real rort.

For serious fun use FMB to setup an Avia against a couple of Fiats down around treetop height in a mountains valley surrounded by high ridges on Slovakia Summer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Make sure you fly with canopy open.

Erkki_M
02-22-2011, 10:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
something that makes delfection shooting more difficulat in il2 than it shoud is that smoke of thetracer has 1 tenth of second delay with respect to the bullet, a big bug never solved

most havent noticed this but 1 tenth means maybe missing by 20 m </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You dont use the gunsight?!? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Monty_Thrud
02-23-2011, 03:15 AM
The level of realism people pursue in this sim is astounding, i remember some years ago one feller would have his wife stand behind him with a steel tray and as he was being shot down his wife would beat him repeatedly around the head to simulate his head hitting the c0ckpit... http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//knockknock.gif

Needless to say he became very good rather quickly., although he's still a bit mutton.

Another feller had his wife take pot shots at him with a gun, obviously intentionally missing, just to simulate bullets hitting the c0ckpit...i haven't seen him around here for a long time.http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//59.gif

Are you prepared to jump out of your bedroom window whilst being shot down, to simulate bailing out.


How dedicated are you?...http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//15.gif

M_Gunz
02-23-2011, 04:02 AM
If you find that you keep missing then make tracks and review them to find out WHY. Something as simple as making quick adjustments to fire can do it, IL2 FM does model secondary motions so ruddering over will also roll the plane and cause gyroscopic precession (push nose to the side, it goes up or down a little depending on which side and prop rotation direction).

You want steady aim then watch which way the sucker is going and set your sight ahead of that then time the shot. A barrel rolling plane keeps pretty much to a circular pattern, what goes around comes around! If he doesn't oblige then save your ammo and fly to line up another shot.

Every jink and barrel costs energy. Just getting the target to maneuver like that is a minor victory if you stick to energy-fighting. If he slows down then get above him or yoyo to stay behind, just do it smooth and you will be faster. If he slows down enough then he won't be able to make fast maneuvers and be an easier target. Wear him down if you need to and save ammo only taking clear shots.

M_Gunz
02-23-2011, 04:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
to simulate his head hitting the c0ckpit... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IRL your head don't hit the cockpit because you're strapped in tight with a 4-way harness. Otherwise turbulence can be the last thing you hit. Even on general aviation trips you strap in for that reason, and those don't involve aerobatics. Guess how realistic using 6dof to move your head more than a hand width or so in any direction is?

You could try playing in a walk-in freezer with an breathing mask on to simulate high-alt or winter.

M_Gunz
02-23-2011, 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 Erkki_M:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
something that makes delfection shooting more difficulat in il2 than it shoud is that smoke of thetracer has 1 tenth of second delay with respect to the bullet, a big bug never solved

most havent noticed this but 1 tenth means maybe missing by 20 m </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You dont use the gunsight?!? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Raaaid is a special case.

thefruitbat
02-23-2011, 06:32 AM
why look at the smoke in the first place, lol.

Bremspropeller
02-23-2011, 06:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">IRL your head don't hit the cockpit because you're strapped in tight with a 4-way harness. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It does, but only at higher roll-rates (actally, it's the onset/ roll-acceleration, not the rate)

Worf101
02-23-2011, 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 DD_crash:
one of my squad mates (Fruitbat) posted a video track (http://www.youtube.com/user/thefruitbat111#p/u/20/FCrKtHHXPLc) You need to practice a lot http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That track was sick!!! And absolutely beautiful. Gave me the desire to fly again.

Worf

WTE_Galway
02-23-2011, 04:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Erkki_M:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
something that makes delfection shooting more difficulat in il2 than it shoud is that smoke of thetracer has 1 tenth of second delay with respect to the bullet, a big bug never solved

most havent noticed this but 1 tenth means maybe missing by 20 m </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You dont use the gunsight?!? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Raaaid is a special case. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Not necessarily.

Joe Foss again:


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Aircraft/VMF-121/


Q. What do you think of the use of tracer? Did you use your tracer for sighting?

A. Yes, sir. To start out I used the sight. After I got started, however, I just dropped my seat clear down so that I wouldn't have my neck stuck out and just barely looked over the edge. Then I used my tracer altogether, but, I had previously used the sight enough to know right where to shoot. As for deflection shots, I'd always lead enough so that I'd never underlead. I'd always over-lead. When you overlead, you just ease forward on your stick and you can always see as far as the axis where he's going to go. You shoot in front of him and just ease forward on your stick. He flies right into it - you see your tracer work right on him. And on the tail end shot just give a burst of tracer, If it's over or under, you just go up or down.

I never wanted to sit up high enough to look at the sight. I just stayed down. To start with, I flew around looking in the sight. It works fine, as far as the sight goes; but after a while you don't need it. Is fact, I don't believe any of the boys that had been in combat a lot were using it; they all slid away down in the seat.

Q. Depended entirely on tracer?

A. Yes, sir.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Soooo ... to be historically accurate, at least flying a Wildcat, shoot by tracer.

M_Gunz
02-23-2011, 06:36 PM
That's because it's automatic weapons and at 100 yards or less with 4 50 cals you're not exactly sniper aiming to start the shot.

I keep trying to tell people that the gunsight is there to line up about where to start triggering, and if you are good then with a bit of care those first shots hit but with automatic weapons it's the tracers you go by. I know this because I've used automatic weapons before out to 400-500 yards, it's not rocket science.

I use the sight but I also know pretty closely where the shots will go and it's not always on the pipper. It's the -when- those shots will be -where- that counts for me but then I don't park on anyone's six where the -when- doesn't matter, I shoot deflection.

All due and great respect for Joe Foss but in IL2 your bullets don't penetrate until the part you hit is destroyed, MG bullets are much more effective at ranges over 200m hitting the front of the target without trying to go through the back.
Years ago I posted about trying to shoot Tu-2 engines out from behind with 20mm and asked about armor. I got a set of screenshots in reply showing the gear right behind the engines deploying. In IL2 that gear soaks hits like tank armor. IRL it can't be as such a wall.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Soooo ... to be historically accurate, at least flying a Wildcat, shoot by tracer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

After a certain year and are you sure that every Navy pilot did that every time? You do say 'accurate'.

PS -- would you get up like that behind a bomber with rear gunner?

Also look up Butch O'Hare some time. He shot deflection and did so accurately.

Erkki_M
02-24-2011, 02:18 AM
And what Brewster Buffalo pilot Hans Wind(74 confirmed victories) thinks:

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hi...tTacticsLecture.html (http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-CaptainWindsAirCombatTacticsLecture.html)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Pay attention to the following points:
1. Always keep both eyes open while shooting.
2. Don't jerk the plane around with sudden movements during aiming; handle it smoothly and gently instead.
3. Don't get carried away while shooting, and keep an eye on your six, so that nobody can get behind your tail.
4. Never use tracers to aim. You can check your lead by tracers, but always correct your aim with your gun-sight.

When shooting from dead six, it is best to get about 20 meters from the enemy, where the prop-wash that was shaking your plane earlier settles down. It is like getting from "heavy seas" to a calm "backwater". It is very nice to shoot from the rear sides, and from there you most often shoot the enemy down, too. You should shoot in front of the armour into the cockpit and engine. The lead is also so small that it'll give you no trouble at all.

It is hard to shoot from the enemy's high six. This is because the target vanishes below your nose when you take the necessary lead. You shouldn't use this method against other fighters.

From the enemy's low six you can easily get to a shooting position, so that he'll never see you coming. Most planes are also very vulnerable from below, so that the first burst usually does what is necessary. When attacking from below, you should have enough speed, so that you don't get into trouble afterwards. Use a head-on solution only if you are forced into it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The translation btw is excellent. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

M_Gunz
02-24-2011, 05:23 AM
Different people have different ways and none is the only one that works. I've read many times from ones that would fire as soon as the target was below their nose and made kills that way. Hartmann would get what I think is insanely close for deflection. I think that because if I get that close in any sim the result is collision. Of course I am the one who is wrong because sim is not IRL, not to mention his success!

redmanekadrin
02-24-2011, 05:54 AM
So I turned on arcade mode and watched some previous replays and was surprised to see what I can only assume are ricochets.

Only plane shooting is mine, all my hits are from the same angle, but some of the arrows are actually pointing off into random directions. This is with MGs of the .30 and .50 variety.

Is this a replay bug or are these actual ricochets?

Pretty neat, if they are ricochets.

M_Gunz
02-24-2011, 07:17 AM
Those are shrapnel. Even some of the 50 cals have explosive value though very small.

horseback
02-24-2011, 12:53 PM
On Wind vs Foss, you have a couple of important factors at work:

1. Foss' main armament was wing mounted, which places a higher emphasis upon firing at a point in space that coincides with your guns' convergence point. Once you learn to accurately gauge with the Mk I eyeball where that point is, the sights become (sort of) superfluous. Add the higher perch the Wildcat's cockpit permitted its pilot, and you could still see ahead of your nose fairly well without peering through the sights.

Wind's aircraft had their main guns nose mounted, which allowed him to aim on a line in space in front of his aircraft; I would assume that his firing solutions would be simpler as a result. He had a similar high perch in the Buffalo, but between the longer, more horizontal nose and already 'deep' cockpit of the 109, he would almost have been forced to use the sights in that aircraft.

2. The quality of the opposition also has to be factored in. Early war Japanese Naval aviators were superbly trained, highly experienced, and flying a fighter that was superior in most ways to the Wildcats that Foss and his fellow Navy & Marine aviators flew at Guadalcanal. However, the fragility of the Zero made 'snap' shooting much more rewarding, so there would be less emphasis on classical marksmanship in the 'draw a deep breath and gently squeeze the trigger' sense of the word.

Wind was in a somewhat more advantageous position pilot quality wise throughout his war, and generally was not as much at a disadvantage aircraft performance-wise. When the ruggedness of Soviet designs is factored in, shot placement would be more important for him than Foss.

cheers

horseback

Erkki_M
02-24-2011, 01:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
On Wind vs Foss, you have a couple of important factors at work:

1. Foss' main armament was wing mounted, which places a higher emphasis upon firing at a point in space that coincides with your guns' convergence point. Once you learn to accurately gauge with the Mk I eyeball where that point is, the sights become (sort of) superfluous. Add the higher perch the Wildcat's cockpit permitted its pilot, and you could still see ahead of your nose fairly well without peering through the sights.

Wind's aircraft had their main guns nose mounted, which allowed him to aim on a line in space in front of his aircraft; I would assume that his firing solutions would be simpler as a result. He had a similar high perch in the Buffalo, but between the longer, more horizontal nose and already 'deep' cockpit of the 109, he would almost have been forced to use the sights in that aircraft.

2. The quality of the opposition also has to be factored in. Early war Japanese Naval aviators were superbly trained, highly experienced, and flying a fighter that was superior in most ways to the Wildcats that Foss and his fellow Navy & Marine aviators flew at Guadalcanal. However, the fragility of the Zero made 'snap' shooting much more rewarding, so there would be less emphasis on classical marksmanship in the 'draw a deep breath and gently squeeze the trigger' sense of the word.

Wind was in a somewhat more advantageous position pilot quality wise throughout his war, and generally was not as much at a disadvantage aircraft performance-wise. When the ruggedness of Soviet designs is factored in, shot placement would be more important for him than Foss.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wind's unit, the LLv24, received its 109s only May 1944. The Lectures were written in 43, him having flown only Buffalo. The B-239 has 4 x M2 .50cals, 2 in wings, 2 over engine. Typical opponents to him in 42 were I-153, I-16, Hurricane, Yak-1, LaGG-3 and MiG-3, and small but increasing number of La-5s from early 43 onwards together with the odd P-40 or Spitfire V.

His victories are in the list below, LLv24's victories and (combat) losses in the Winter and Continuation Wars:

http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/L..._sotatoimitappioista (http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luettelo_Lentolaivue_24:n_ilmavoitoista_ja_sotatoi mitappioista)

horseback
02-24-2011, 05:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Lectures were written in 43, him having flown only Buffalo. The B-239 has 4 x M2 .50cals, 2 in wings, 2 over engine. Typical opponents to him in 42 were I-153, I-16, Hurricane, Yak-1, LaGG-3 and MiG-3, and small but increasing number of La-5s from early 43 onwards together with the odd P-40 or Spitfire V. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, nose mounted armament (weren't the nose mounted guns provided more rounds?) allowing at least half of your firepower to go in a straight line with your flight path, low quality pilot opposition, near parity in performance, but much more solidly built enemy aircraft. Of the aircraft you listed, only a well flown Hurricane or Tomahawk was better performing than the Buffalo in the first year or so, and the Finns had a superbly trained cadre of pilots who apparently all knew how to shoot -- unlike their opposition. Flying over your home territory, knowing that you are much better than the enemy you face also gives you more confidence and the leisure to take more care in following your training doctrine.

US Naval aviators rated the early lighter versions of the Buffalo over the early lighter -3 versions of the Wildcat, and Foss was flying the heavier and less nimble F4F-4 (thank you again, Fleet Air Arm) versions against the cream of the IJNAF flying the faster and much more maneuverable A6M2 and A6M3 models of the Type Zero.

Foss had to be as concerned with self defense as he was with shooting down enemy aircraft; hence the comment about dropping his seat all the way down. With the normal pilot seating position in a Wildcat looking through the sight, his head and shoulders were well above the cockpit sill and more vulnerable to LMG fire from every direction except directly to the rear, and the Zero carried a ton of ammo for its nose mounted LMGs. Given that the Japanese Naval Pilots were very, very good at that time, you would be wise to expose as little of your body as possible, so he and his compatriots apparently decided to keep as much of their torsos behind the widest portion of the armor plate behind their seats while in the combat zone.

Foss had to improvise (maybe compromise is a better word) a bit on the official doctrine to survive and still be combat effective.

I'm trying to say that both pilots were effective in their respective arenas, but they had different toolkits and different problems to solve.

cheers

horseback

redmanekadrin
02-24-2011, 06:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Those are shrapnel. Even some of the 50 cals have explosive value though very small. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would explain the .50s doing it, but I've noticed this with .30s as well. Do they also have some explosive value?

VW-IceFire
02-24-2011, 06:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by redmanekadrin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Those are shrapnel. Even some of the 50 cals have explosive value though very small. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would explain the .50s doing it, but I've noticed this with .30s as well. Do they also have some explosive value? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe some sort of simulation of the incendiary effect? I'm not sure.

I don't remember seeing .30 cals causing explosive effects either. I'll have to check.

Xiolablu3
02-24-2011, 06:38 PM
British .303 ammo had an incendiary effect. Maybe this is what we are seeing? De Wilde ammo.

M_Gunz
02-25-2011, 12:34 AM
IIRC Italian 30 cals did.

If it's shrapnel there will be 2+ "small" arrows pointing away from the burst.

And here's the now-net-ancient (2002) Oleg's Guns and Ammo Table. Note that 'power' is expressed as equivalent kg TNT whether the explosive used was TNT or not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">


Author:
Oleg_Maddox
Rank:
Creator of IL-2
Sturmovik
Date:
08/14/02 12:56PM



Here is the direct table of shells and bullets from source code of IL-2.
Comments:

power - here is the TNT, that also modelled (as well as pices of shells).

T - Tracer bullet
AP - Armor-Piercing bullet
APT - Armor-Piercing with Tracer
API - Armor-Piercing Incendary
APIT - Armor-Piercing Incendary Tracer
HE - High-Explosive shell
HEI - High-Explosive Incendary shell
HET - High-Explosive with Tracer
HEIT - High-Explosive Incendary Tracer
MG - M-Geschoss, thin-shell High Explosive

such line destinated the sequence of shells/bullets:
// APIT - AP - AP - APIT - API - API


Table itself.
==========================


Browning .303
// APIT - AP - AP - APIT - API - API

API/APIT
mass = 0.010668491403778
speed = 835.0
power = 0.0018

AP
mass = 0.010668491403778
speed = 835.0
power = 0

Browning .50
// APIT - AP - HE - AP

APIT
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0.002

AP
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0

HE
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0.00148

Hispano-Suiza Mk.I
// HET - AP - HE - AP

HE/HET
mass = 0.129
speed = 860.0
power = 0.012

AP
mass = 0.124
speed = 860.0
power = 0

M4
// HET - (APT/HET)

HET
mass = 0.604
speed = 612.0
power = 0.044

MG 131
// HET - AP - HE - AP

HE/HET
mass = 0.035
speed = 710.0
power = 0.00148

AP
mass = 0.034
speed = 750.0
power = 0

MG 15
// AP - AP - APT

AP/APT
mass = 0.0128
speed = 760.0
power = 0

MG 151
// HET - AP - HE - AP

HE/HET
mass = 0.057
speed = 960.0
power = 0.0019

AP
mass = 0.072
speed = 859.0
power = 0

MG 151/20
// APIT - HE - HE - MG - MG
APIT
mass = 0.115
speed = 710.0
power = 0.0036

HE
mass = 0.115
speed = 705.0
power = 0.0044

MG
mass = 0.092
speed = 775.0
power = 0.0186

MG 17
// AP - AP - APT

AP/APT
mass = 0.010
speed = 810.0
power = 0

MG 81
// AP - APT

AP/APT
mass = 0.010
speed = 920.0
power = 0

MG/FF
// APIT - HE - HE - MG

APIT
mass = 0.115
speed = 580.0
power = 0.0036

HE
mass = 0.115
speed = 585.0
power = 0.0044

MG
mass = 0.092
speed = 690.0
power = 0.0186

MK 103
// APT - MG - MG - HE

APT
mass = 0.502
speed = 752.0
power = 0.0

MG
mass = 0.330
speed = 900.0
power = 0.072

HE
mass = 0.455
speed = 800.0
power = 0.024

MK 108
// HEIT - MG

HEIT
mass = 0.455
speed = 500.0
power = 0.024

MG
mass = 0.330
speed = 525.0
power = 0.072

NS-37
// HEIT - APT

HEIT
mass = 0.735
speed = 900.0
power = 0.0406

APT
mass = 0.760
speed = 880.0
power = 0

NS-45
// HEIT - AP

HEIT
mass = 1.065
speed = 780.0
power = 0.052

AP
mass = 1.000
speed = 850.0
power = 0.0

PaK40
// HEIT

HEIT
mass = 6.800
speed = 770.0
power = 0.680

ShKAS
// APIT - API - T - API

APIT
mass = 0.0096
speed = 869.0
power = 0.0005

API
mass = 0.0096
speed = 871.0
power = 0.0005

T
massa = 0.0096
speed = 869.0
power = 0

ShVAK
// APIT - HE

APIT
mass = 0.096
speed = 800.0
power = 0.001

HE
mass = 0.0676
speed = 800.0
power = 0.0068

UBS / UBT
// APIT - AP - HEI

APIT
mass = 0.0448
speed = 850.0
power = 0.001

AP
mass = 0.051
speed = 850.0
power = 0

HEI
mass = 0.0428
speed = 850.0
power = (0.00114+0.00128)

VYa
// SIT - API - API

SIT
mass = 0.195
speed = 890.0
power = 0.0156

API
mass = 0.201
speed = 890.0
power = 0.008

API
mass = 0.201
speed = 890.0
power = 0.008


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

If you'll ask why some bullets has TNT, its because they had explosive in warhead.



Oleg Maddox
1C:Maddox Games
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

redmanekadrin
02-25-2011, 05:29 AM
Huh, rounds from the same gun going different speeds depending on what kind of round it is.

Is that a game thing or did that happen in reality as well?

Erkki_M
02-25-2011, 05:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by redmanekadrin:
Huh, rounds from the same gun going different speeds depending on what kind of round it is.

Is that a game thing or did that happen in reality as well? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...ition_specifications (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_151_cannon#Ammunition_specifications)

gothkrieger
02-25-2011, 10:53 AM
Remarkable, the amount of research that went into designing the sim, a guy has to be impressed with the effort.

M_Gunz
02-25-2011, 11:11 AM
Different speeds and different trajectories as well, but not by much at close to medium range. Still a wing from behind can be pretty thin.

Johnners50m
02-27-2011, 04:18 AM
I'm just going to haul this all the way back to the beginning. Flying cannon and MG-armed machines against the rookie AI I could often "saddle up" and pour long bursts in at short range to no obvious effect. Very frustrating until for some reason I checked my control assignments and found that the trigger on my stick was set to fire the MGs - button 2 was for cannon. Once that was fixed I started knocking things down (not very often, admittedly)

M_Gunz
02-27-2011, 09:23 AM
Edit your conf.ini so that it reads Arcade=1 instead of 0. The shooting/flying won't be any easier but during play you will see white dots wherever you hit a target, even on ground objects. Make a track (the kind that you start and end during the mission) or five of your shooting. Run the track(s) through playback with looping, time and view control all set ON. Get a thorough look at what happens. Slow time to 1/4, pause, use POV control to jump the view between your c0ckpit and the target, slew the view around so you see the shots from your plane to or past the target. Wherever there's a hit a long arrow will sprout on the target, it -only- shows the direction the shot went and not that the bullet went all the way through. Shrapnel will make little flower bursts of short arrows from explosive round bursts.

Prepared to be amazed at how many well-aimed looking shots miss by a yard or so. Also how many shots the rear fuselage (tail/tail-wheel/seat-back/frame/etc) can soak up as in the damage model each part must be destroyed before another shot gets past.

Things new people often don't take into account:

-- Wing guns point inward and meet roughly in a point (there's some bullet scatter) out at whatever convergence range you either set or left at default. If convergence is 400 meters and you're shooting at 100m then the wing gun shots might go right around the target on either side.

-- Slip. If you don't keep the nose of the plane from pointing off to one side of where the plane is going then your shots will have some sideways motion to where the pipper is pointing. Slip will slow you down, throw your aim off a bit, and if you stall while in slip then you will spin unless you take immediate measures.

What tells you when your plane is pointed to the side of its own path: In most planes there is an upward curving "smiley" tube with a black ball in it right in the front instrument panel but usually below game shooting view in medium to close zoom. In some (Spitfires for example) it's a needle on a two needle gauge way down on the lower right front instrument panel. P-51 has a big one on the instrumemt panel and a little one at the base of the gun sight, it's ideal for sim-shooting.
The Ball (or Slip needle) will be off center when the plane is skidding or slipping (pointing to a side) because the slip will make a sideways force that can be felt inside the plane. IRL you can feel it same as you can in a car going around a turn (car turning on a flat road will always feel a skid force whether the tires skid or not), 'down' will not be straight under your butt. A little tiny bit, less than a ball width is no problem but a couple widths or more can be! OTOH with practice you can make 'slip shots' work. If the target is running parallel to you, a bit of slip may be no big deal at all.

You correct slip with the rudder. Pilot expression is "Step on the Ball". If the ball is to the left then rudder some left to bring it back to center. Watch it happen when practice flying, mouse your view down a bit if need be. In a sim you need to see the ball often enough to learn how much rudder to use especially in turns but it doesn't take long to get used to enough to get and stay close. Its like road driving, you don't watch the speedometer most of the time (unless you're a total dweeb) but you do take a glance now and then.

The Ball has some lag and it's subject to negative G's and 'sink'. Anywhere near wings-level stall, do NOT go by the Ball! Watch your wings and the horizon and if a wing drops then rudder away from it to pick it up, DO NOT use aileron!

In a sim you can't feel your speed to keep aware of that even more than your slip. Between the two you can fly nice and clean, make good speed and avoid losing control of the plane. There's forces always at work on your plane, mainly the spiral of air from the prop (prop wash) striking wings and tail that change with every change in speed/power/prop that you need to adjust rudder for which is probably why so many older plane designs didn't bother with pilot-adjustable rudder trim. You need to occasionally check and correct for that dynamic and the payoff is cleaner, faster flight and straighter shooting.

Anywho, that's just a couple things that new players really need to know.