PDA

View Full Version : Gun jamming & Do 335



Skyraider3D
02-10-2006, 06:45 AM
First of all I want to say that I really enjoy the new patch. Many thanks. My first flight in the Tempest resulted in 7 kills (3x Mc 205 + 4x Tempest) so I might have found a new favourite (being a Fw 190 jock normally)! I only quit combat cause I ran out of fuel (I only took 25%) - there was still ammo left for more http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Anyway, I am posting to make a few suggestions. To prevent any inflammable discussions, I am not whining, I am just suggesting some possible improvements http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The Do 335 is fun to though I do feel it's too slow - especially on acceleration. I may be mistaken but didn't the 335 have methanol boosting? Pierre Clostermann wrote in his autobiography The Big Show (must-read for those who haven't - great story!) that he encountered a 335 on the deck. The 335 kicked in his boost (evident by grey smoke from the engine) and left the Tempests standing, despite the latter's altitude advantage.
Besides the addition of boost to the 335 it would be nice to actually have the methanol boost smoke effect added too.
On a side note, it seems the sound of the Do 335 engines changes when you switch from one external view to another. for example when viewing yourself with F2, then viewing the enemy with ctrl-F2 and then going back to viewing yourself with F2 - the sound changes quite noticably. Game bug or sound card bug?


The main suggestion I want to make, is to introduce high G gun jamming. In many combat reports pilots mention a number of their guns jamming. Often this was the cause of violent high-G manoeuvres. It's a fact of life that guns are prone to jam when they are exposed to high G forces and it would be great to have this added to the game, in a similar way that flaps and landing gear gets jammed at too high speeds.

The way I imagine this is to have a random G-limit assigned to each gun on respawn. This limit should be anywhere between, say, 3 and 7 G's. The guns should thus jam when fired at or above their individual G-load limit. Some gun types jammed faster than others. For example the big 50mm gun on the Me 262 A-1a/U4 should only be fired when flying straight and level (1 G) or else it's bound to jam.

I think it should be a relatively light modification that would add to the realism of the game. It will limit both Yaks and Spits from getting easy kills in turning fights as well as limiting 190s and Jugs from pulling off insane boom&zoom manoeuvres. Or in other words, pilots will have to plan their attacks better, use more complex manoeuvres (opposedto following the arrow at the top of your screen!) and fight harder and longer for a good gunnery position. Like I mentioned I got 7 kills in one flight and that wouldn't really be posible had my guns been prone to jamming on high-G manoeuvres.

Most of us have seen gun camera footage and often it's striking to see how little manoeuvring is actually going on. It's simply because you can't really fire guns when half blacking out. Your guns would jam and you're out of the race.

I really hope my suggestion will eventually make it into the game. What do you think Oleg? Is it feasable?

Skyraider3D
02-10-2006, 06:45 AM
First of all I want to say that I really enjoy the new patch. Many thanks. My first flight in the Tempest resulted in 7 kills (3x Mc 205 + 4x Tempest) so I might have found a new favourite (being a Fw 190 jock normally)! I only quit combat cause I ran out of fuel (I only took 25%) - there was still ammo left for more http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Anyway, I am posting to make a few suggestions. To prevent any inflammable discussions, I am not whining, I am just suggesting some possible improvements http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The Do 335 is fun to though I do feel it's too slow - especially on acceleration. I may be mistaken but didn't the 335 have methanol boosting? Pierre Clostermann wrote in his autobiography The Big Show (must-read for those who haven't - great story!) that he encountered a 335 on the deck. The 335 kicked in his boost (evident by grey smoke from the engine) and left the Tempests standing, despite the latter's altitude advantage.
Besides the addition of boost to the 335 it would be nice to actually have the methanol boost smoke effect added too.
On a side note, it seems the sound of the Do 335 engines changes when you switch from one external view to another. for example when viewing yourself with F2, then viewing the enemy with ctrl-F2 and then going back to viewing yourself with F2 - the sound changes quite noticably. Game bug or sound card bug?


The main suggestion I want to make, is to introduce high G gun jamming. In many combat reports pilots mention a number of their guns jamming. Often this was the cause of violent high-G manoeuvres. It's a fact of life that guns are prone to jam when they are exposed to high G forces and it would be great to have this added to the game, in a similar way that flaps and landing gear gets jammed at too high speeds.

The way I imagine this is to have a random G-limit assigned to each gun on respawn. This limit should be anywhere between, say, 3 and 7 G's. The guns should thus jam when fired at or above their individual G-load limit. Some gun types jammed faster than others. For example the big 50mm gun on the Me 262 A-1a/U4 should only be fired when flying straight and level (1 G) or else it's bound to jam.

I think it should be a relatively light modification that would add to the realism of the game. It will limit both Yaks and Spits from getting easy kills in turning fights as well as limiting 190s and Jugs from pulling off insane boom&zoom manoeuvres. Or in other words, pilots will have to plan their attacks better, use more complex manoeuvres (opposedto following the arrow at the top of your screen!) and fight harder and longer for a good gunnery position. Like I mentioned I got 7 kills in one flight and that wouldn't really be posible had my guns been prone to jamming on high-G manoeuvres.

Most of us have seen gun camera footage and often it's striking to see how little manoeuvring is actually going on. It's simply because you can't really fire guns when half blacking out. Your guns would jam and you're out of the race.

I really hope my suggestion will eventually make it into the game. What do you think Oleg? Is it feasable?

anasteksi
02-10-2006, 07:05 AM
I don't remember who it was but some finnish pilot said that the ammo belts of 109 were so weak that if you tried to fire with high g maneuvers the belt will bend and that couses a jam.

tigertalon
02-10-2006, 07:05 AM
You got my full support on gun jamming issue. It was, however, the first thing I requested on this forums when I joined.

And guns shouldn't only jam when under high G. There should be a probability factor for every gun (bullet?) fired, that the gun would jam. This probability factor would be affected by G, by time of couninuous firing, by weapon ROF etc etc...

Drawbacks: it can be very CPU consuming (imagine HurriMkIIb firing countinuously for 5 secs under high G...), and it is IMO quite hard to find RL data about gun reliabilites apart from pilot/mechanics accounts.

On some planes (zero, Ki, P40B/C, SBD, etc) pilot had accsess to cowling machineguns and shoudl be able to unjam them.

tigertalon
02-10-2006, 07:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anasteksi:
I don't remember who it was but some finnish pilot said that the ammo belts of 109 were so weak that if you tried to fire with high g maneuvers the belt will bend and that couses a jam. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Guenther Rall preferred NOT to take 20mm gondolas with him due to this reason.

ImpStarDuece
02-10-2006, 07:50 AM
The British had huge trouble over Malta with their Mk. II Hispanos, particularly in the Spitfire Vc. While not the most reliable gun intially, in ETO service it was transformed into a dependable piece of weaponry by dint of constant effort. However, over the Western Desert and Malta in early 1942, it wasn't uncommon for 25% of the cannons in a squadron to pack it in after a burst or two.

Eventually it was traced back to 3 main causes.

1. Improper maintence by exhausted armourers. The dust from Malta take offs caused a lot of problems with the Hispano. Eventually all muzzle ports were sealed with doped squares of fabric.

2. Faulty ammunition. About 50% of the cannon stoppages over Malta were traced back to poor quality, US made ammunition.

3. Faulty recoil springs. Several stoppages were linked to insufficient recoil force from US M7 type muzzle adaptors.

There are several accounts of Spitfire pilots shooting down Ju-88s and He-111s with just one cannon working. Try doing that in IL-2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

hobnail
02-10-2006, 03:53 PM
Do-335 A-1 had MW50 boost, the one in the sim is a A-0 and was unboosted. I think the choice was made to simulate this one because there was more data, both cockpit and FM on the lower performance A-0.

Re the gunjamming, a matter for Oleg but I'd like to see gun jams introduced for Maddox:BoB

mortoma
02-10-2006, 06:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hobnail:
Do-335 A-1 had MW50 boost, the one in the sim is a A-0 and was unboosted. I think the choice was made to simulate this one because there was more data, both cockpit and FM on the lower performance A-0.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>You are perfectly correct concerning the Do-335, however even for a A-0, it still seems to be too slow and the acceleration is not any better than any average plane in the sim. It should be. It was the A-0 model that was captured in good flying order by the Americans and was then flown to Cherbourg, France to be put on the CV Reaper so they could test it in the states. Two P-51D Mustangs were assigned to fly with it but they could not keep up with the A-0 at all. The A-0 arrived at Cherbourg 45 minutes before the Mustangs, despite the best efforts of the Mustang pilots to keep up with it. The modeled one in the sim would not leave P-51Ds behind like that, so far as I can tell in my tests. I feel the low altitude speed is too slow and the acceleration is way, way too slow.
But of course I may stand corrected some time in the future, could be wrong.

berg417448
02-10-2006, 06:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mortoma:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hobnail:
Do-335 A-1 had MW50 boost, the one in the sim is a A-0 and was unboosted. I think the choice was made to simulate this one because there was more data, both cockpit and FM on the lower performance A-0.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>You are perfectly correct concerning the Do-335, however even for a A-0, it still seems to be too slow and the acceleration is not any better than any average plane in the sim. It should be. It was the A-0 model that was captured in good flying order by the Americans and was then flown to Cherbourg, France to be put on the CV Reaper so they could test it in the states. Two P-51D Mustangs were assigned to fly with it but they could not keep up with the A-0 at all. The A-0 arrived at Cherbourg 45 minutes before the Mustangs, despite the best efforts of the Mustang pilots to keep up with it. The modeled one in the sim would not leave P-51Ds behind like that, so far as I can tell in my tests. I feel the low altitude speed is too slow and the acceleration is way, way too slow.
But of course I may stand corrected some time in the future, could be wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Those P-51D arrived late because they were carrying drop tanks which limited their cruising speed. That fact is usually omitted from that anecdote.
Even so, the DO-335 was faster.

tigertalon
02-10-2006, 06:44 PM
Acceleration in general is a weak spot of this sim. In many many cases way way wrong.

Skyraider3D
02-10-2006, 09:22 PM
Thanks for the input guys! All very valid comments.


PS. I found the 335 surprisingly manoeuvrable, but I guess that's what that big big wing is good for http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stafroty
02-11-2006, 03:06 AM
if we get gun jammings, would be many weapons more non reliable than others. like russian 12,7, it needed to be used on short burtst, cos belt coulndt move all the time at the speed what gun asked, it stucked. what about hispanos? or every other guns and cannons? long bursts werent be able to be shot without dangering of ammo feeding problems cos inertia what belt made when gun sucked more ammo. itws hard to implement like it was in real. should there be more gun jams like in 109 cos they dont have FULL ammo load which prevented those jams pretty well, with nonfull ammo load http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif we got now non full load without the modellin of jammin, and only in it. why were there danger on P51 to fly combat maneuvers with full fuel?? why is stang still able to carry full fuel?

world isnt crazy, we are.

Sintubin
02-11-2006, 06:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stafroty:
if we get gun jammings, would be many weapons more non reliable than others. like russian 12,7, it needed to be used on short burtst, cos belt coulndt move all the time at the speed what gun asked, it stucked. what about hispanos? or every other guns and cannons? long bursts werent be able to be shot without dangering of ammo feeding problems cos inertia what belt made when gun sucked more ammo. itws hard to implement like it was in real. should there be more gun jams like in 109 cos they dont have FULL ammo load which prevented those jams pretty well, with nonfull ammo load http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif we got now non full load without the modellin of jammin, and only in it. why were there danger on P51 to fly combat maneuvers with full fuel?? why is stang still able to carry full fuel?

world isnt crazy, we are. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif for this topic and reply above

SeaFireLIV
02-11-2006, 06:56 PM
I wish we did have such things as gun jams. I flew EAW and gun jams happened, especially if flying high and turning inverted at speed. It`s a pain just when about to shoot a 109, but it`s a realistic pain and I wish we had it.

Perhaps Oleg could just do a minimum generic `jamming`, so find the aircarft that jammed least of all, reduce the % slightly and apply to ALL weapons. Surely all guns jammed, did they not? This would reduce the arguments of what gun jammed least as long as Oleg mentioned in the Readme that this was a generic jamming of all weapons to help with historical realism.

It`s annoying flying perfect aircraft that never were perfect in WWII. I mean, how authentic is that? Not very. Every pilot recollection has a whine or two about his beloved aircraft.

I would also add that a generic engine failure (based on weather, etc) would be nice too.

Stafroty
02-11-2006, 10:01 PM
full ammo load on 109 sure didnt mean that it meant 100% jam possibility http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

in this day, we have flown with "half" empty cannon, just to make it work right, and is there any other plane having the same rule?

Skyraider3D
02-11-2006, 10:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
It`s annoying flying perfect aircraft that never were perfect in WWII. I mean, how authentic is that? Not very. Every pilot recollection has a whine or two about his beloved aircraft.

I would also add that a generic engine failure (based on weather, etc) would be nice too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hmmm not too keen on generic engine failure. At least lets faults be the cause of your own actions (i.e. hard manoeuvring). How annoying would it be to fly the Dora. They had about a quarter of operational flight aborts due to engine malfunctions. Imagine needing to land after every fourth take off... I'd find it totally annoying... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stafroty
02-11-2006, 10:27 PM
yea,skyraider. imagine how it would be flying dora, have you ever tested it?

can you make up ur proofs on here, or is that again believing on issue which you heard from someone? or you just understood or saw somewhere what you wanted and "needed" to ?

should we get equal fuel in terms of balancing, in this sim? how would US engines run with german low octane fuel made from charcoal?

Skyraider3D
02-11-2006, 11:17 PM
Jeez man... what is wrong with some of you people here. Always looking for a fight or I don't know what... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Stafroty, listen. I have a number of books by a certain Donald Caldwell. He has meticulously researched the operations of JG 26. Many missions are described in detail and the amount of mission aborts due to engine failures on the Dora is staggering. These books also have very detailed loss lists, complete with WerkeNummer and cause of loss. The Doras have a very high percentage of non-combat losses (i.e. engine failures etc).

Judging from your reply however you probably haven't a clue who Donald Caldwell is, what a WerkeNummer is, and your only association with the Dora is probably from playing this flightsim. I hope you have at least heard of JG 26... no I don't mean that Combat Flightsim clan.

Please let's continue this dicussion on a more mature level. 25% may be a bit of an exaggeration, but the fact is the Dora's engine had serious reliability issues. But taken into account aircraft that didn't take off because of engine problems, the figure is likely a lot bigger.

Let me quote from "Top Guns of the Luftwaffe" on a mission of 4 April 1945:
"A First Gruppe freie Jagd later that day was more successful. Sixteen Focke-Wulfs took off at 1905, led by Lt. Soeffing. Seven aborted, but the others jumped a small formation of Allied fighter-bombers near Diepholz and downed two."

If you have done your maths right, then you will have noticed that there was a failure ratio of 44% on that mission. And that was a succesful mission, go figure...

I hope that satisfies your hunger for facts. Sigh... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
Some people do do some research before opening their gob. You might want to learn from them, Stafroty.

Stafroty
02-12-2006, 12:18 AM
if i write a book, does it cause me to have much more credit? do you then believe me more? is it like certificate?

"Judging from your reply however you probably haven't a clue who Donald Caldwell is, what a WerkeNummer is, and your only association with the Dora is probably from playing this flightsim. I hope you have at least heard of JG 26... no I don't mean that Combat Flightsim clan."

i dont have an slightest idea what are you talking about http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif be sure.

"Please let's continue this dicussion on a more mature level."

sure, suits me after i bit insult you bit more. then we can call ceace fire if you can be anymore up on it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

" 25% may be a bit of an exaggeration"

CONFESS!!

" but the fact is the Dora's engine had serious reliability issues."

were the mechanics or pilot serious?
wonder how serious it has to be if its been serious, according to you and your books http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"But taken into account aircraft that didn't take off because of engine problems, the figure is likely a lot bigger."

of course it is bigger, suits your bias well

"If you have done your maths right, then you will have noticed that there was a failure ratio of 44% on that mission. And that was a succesful mission, go figure..."

all because of engines http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif damn shame =( next you claim that it was allied pilots who made it happen, or maybe not you, but someone else. and then you would shut up your mouth, cos its not against your bias, or away from you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif you have only one side =)

"I hope that satisfies your hunger for facts. Sigh... Sad
Some people do do some research before opening their gob. You might want to learn from them, Stafroty."

you cant imagine how full i feel witht these facts, one claims this fact other this fact http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
bon appetite. sometimes food is good for you, sometimes it is discusting and you demand something else.

oh, quess, im not luftie http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif all i am.

attila68
02-12-2006, 04:27 AM
Statforty, you are truly staggering, I have flown with 3D and he is a very good humoured decent guy and what he is writing is very well researched. Your reply doesnt even make sense! Go away and pester someone else. The readers on this forum will agree your post is worthless.

SeaFireLIV
02-12-2006, 05:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stafroty:
if i write a book, does it cause me to have much more credit? do you then believe me more? is it like certificate?

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Safroty, you really ought to just stop talking/writing and think.

Stafroty
02-12-2006, 06:41 AM
condemn me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Philipscdrw
02-12-2006, 07:47 AM
I wish this forum had an 'ignore' feature - some people's posts I would prefer not to see.

'Realistic' (i.e. semi-random) engine failures would be welcome on my PC, particularly on single missions. On the dynamic campaigns, I'd like a roster of aircraft as well as pilots, the campaign remembering the damage and abuses suffered by the aircraft and adjusting the chances of failure accordingly. If pilots generally are assigned specific aircraft and you repeatedly cruise at high power, it would increase the probability that your engine will fail until the mechanics are able to replace it.

Skyraider3D
02-12-2006, 07:56 AM
Interesting thought there about pilot rosters and individual aircraft.

On a vaguely related note, it would be great to have automatically updating scoreboards on the rudder (Luftwaffe) or under the cockpit (allies) for both online and offline play http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stafroty
02-13-2006, 03:19 AM
when you ignore someone, its like inserting earplugs in own ears or like closing your eyes. Reality stays there even if you cant hear or see it =) is the reality SO hard to face???

quiet_man
02-13-2006, 04:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skyraider3D:
Jeez man... what is wrong with some of you people here. Always looking for a fight or I don't know what... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Stafroty, listen. I have a number of books by a certain Donald Caldwell. He has meticulously researched the operations of JG 26. Many missions are described in detail and the amount of mission aborts due to engine failures on the Dora is staggering. These books also have very detailed loss lists, complete with WerkeNummer and cause of loss. The Doras have a very high percentage of non-combat losses (i.e. engine failures etc).

Judging from your reply however you probably haven't a clue who Donald Caldwell is, what a WerkeNummer is, and your only association with the Dora is probably from playing this flightsim. I hope you have at least heard of JG 26... no I don't mean that Combat Flightsim clan.

Please let's continue this dicussion on a more mature level. 25% may be a bit of an exaggeration, but the fact is the Dora's engine had serious reliability issues. But taken into account aircraft that didn't take off because of engine problems, the figure is likely a lot bigger.

Let me quote from "Top Guns of the Luftwaffe" on a mission of 4 April 1945:
"A First Gruppe freie Jagd later that day was more successful. Sixteen Focke-Wulfs took off at 1905, led by Lt. Soeffing. Seven aborted, but the others jumped a small formation of Allied fighter-bombers near Diepholz and downed two."

If you have done your maths right, then you will have noticed that there was a failure ratio of 44% on that mission. And that was a succesful mission, go figure...

I hope that satisfies your hunger for facts. Sigh... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
Some people do do some research before opening their gob. You might want to learn from them, Stafroty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"4 April 1945" ... I wonder what the reason was ... could have had the "overall" situation some influence? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

statistic is something wonderfull, name me any plane and using above systematic I prove that is was the most unrliable in the world! ... or was it the most reliable? ... wathever you want http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


quiet_man

gx-warspite
02-13-2006, 06:18 PM
No thanks.

Gun jamming is one of those things I just don't want to deal with. Like faulty engines and other mechanical defects, for example. Model the aircraft correctly, but don't interfere in the test of skill with random number generators, thanks.

Stafroty
02-14-2006, 05:48 AM
why are we preventin the jams if its not modeled?

Is 109 only plane which has ammoload reduced because of that?

is there any bias ?

or were all the other planes 100% proof for jams?

why didnt germans fix it, or reduce ammo mag chamber size to get more room in already tight packed engine compardment. why did they still use too big cannon mags without fillin em full?

i know there is few planes in sim on where you can get Extra ammo also.

Targ
02-26-2006, 02:15 PM
Stop the bickering and insults please http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I would hate to ban anyone http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif