PDA

View Full Version : Realistic Guns...Not



blankenship
03-12-2004, 07:42 AM
I think the realistic guns are too weak when checked and too strong when unchecked. How many agree?

blankenship
03-12-2004, 07:42 AM
I think the realistic guns are too weak when checked and too strong when unchecked. How many agree?

TgD Thunderbolt56
03-12-2004, 07:47 AM
I never flew with it unchecked, so it's hard to compare. I can say, however, that it's of utmost importance to hit what you're aiming at.

Remember, bullets go where they are aimed...not where you wish them to go.

TB



http://home.earthlink.net/~aclzkim1/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/il2sig2.jpg

Slush69
03-12-2004, 07:49 AM
"Strength" as in kilogram/second delivered has nothing to do with the gun settings in the difficulty menu. It only affects the ballistic flight model. At least as far as I know.

There have been a few posts analyzing the ballistic profile of the various guns and none found any behaviour that contradicted known gun data, so to answer your question: No, I don't think there's anything wrong with the guns.

cheers/slush

http://www.wilcks.dk/crap/Eurotrolls.gif

JG27_Dacripler
03-12-2004, 07:57 AM
When your in unchecked meaning, you can jump an opponent , race down and hail lead all over your opponent at a phenominal rate?

Or:

When your checked meaning, you slowly find an opponent and have to ensure it is the enemy and at that time squeeze the trigger when at a matched speed?

Tully__
03-12-2004, 08:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by blankenship:
I think the realistic guns are ... too strong when unchecked. How many agree?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well DUH!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

In fact, Oleg has posted that unrealistic gunnery does four times as much damage as realistic so I would be most surprised if it wasn't "too strong". http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

=================================================


http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/Corsair.jpg (http://www.mudmovers.com/sturmovik_101/FAQ.htm)

IL2 Forums Moderator
Forum Terms of Use (http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm)

Salut
Tully

Dmitri9mm
03-12-2004, 08:43 AM
Well it's not like this topic is completely new, but there is a bit of an issue in it. You just have to be more speciffic: I meen who would claim that the MG/FF is too weak for instance.
The biggest problem about damage modelling is that continous hits by MG fire doesn't do comulative damage, and thus all MGs seem very weak.

bird_brain
03-12-2004, 08:47 AM
I have never unchecked realistic guns so I will take Tully's word for it.

http://hstrial-jyarbrough.homestead.com/hhsig2.jpg
**** The Hell Hawks Campaign is available @ ****
http://www.netwings.org/library/Forgotten_Battles/Missions/index-10.html

clint-ruin
03-12-2004, 08:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dmitri9mm:

The biggest problem about damage modelling is that continous hits by MG fire doesn't do comulative damage, and thus all MGs seem very weak.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um, I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Could you elaborate a bit more? Are you suggesting that continuously hitting the same point on an aircraft with MG fire does not do any more damage after the first round hits?

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

dbuff
03-12-2004, 09:03 AM
yes "unrealtic guns" mean straight trajectory and 3-4 times regular damage. my 5 year old like that..... we use 37mm guns to easily sink small ships this way.

the damage done by guns in "realistic" setting are acceptable by community and what that means is that this poor dead horse has been beaten very very many times....

have fun - S!

non solum armis

fulanito_chile
03-12-2004, 09:30 AM
in f/B is it possible to kill the AI pilot but not realy cause to much damage to the aircraft?!?

"The Chilean Airforce" (FACH) The 4th oldest in the World...

LilHorse
03-12-2004, 09:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fulanito_chile:
in f/B is it possible to kill the AI pilot but not realy cause to much damage to the aircraft?!?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, it is possible with both real opponants and AI.

And the gunnery is just fine in realistic mode. And yes, there is cumulative damage with it to be sure. All this is easily confirmed when flying online against real opponants. If you're having a hard time taking down planes with the realistic gunnery (not you specifically, fulanito) I have three words for you: Practice. Practice. Practice.

Don't feel too bad. It aint easy. It's not supposed to be. It wasn't in real life.

fulanito_chile
03-12-2004, 09:46 AM
the more i find out things about F/B the more i love it.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif

"The Chilean Airforce" (FACH) The 4th oldest in the World...

Dmitri9mm
03-12-2004, 10:01 AM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by clint-ruin:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dmitri9mm:

The biggest problem about damage modelling is that continous hits by MG fire doesn't do comulative damage, and thus all MGs seem very weak.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Um, I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Could you elaborate a bit more? Are you suggesting that continuously hitting the same point on an aircraft with MG fire does not do any more damage after the first round hits?

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

I'm not saying that damage can't "build up" after several hits, what I'm saying is that we miss out the effect of for instance: 8 .303 cal. MGs at a ROF of 1200. Ӟ short, well aimed burst should literally saw the wing of an aircraft because the massive amount of small structural dammages would tear the wing off like a posterstamp (if you get the picture).
On several occations I have delivered a massive amount of lead into the wing of a '109 and the result was a few holes in the ving with practically no effect on flight characteristics, where - at lesat - the stressed metal skinning should have been ripped off.
In short: The .303 cal. rounds are very weak, and we get suprisingly little out of having a dozen of them in the Hurri Mk IIb.
it looks a little better for the .50 cal. but still it seems to me as if machineguns in general are a bit underrated.

Aaron_GT
03-12-2004, 11:09 AM
.303 rounds, certainly against bombers,
were considered at the time (crica 1940)
as underperforming, even with De Wilde
ammunition.

In fact specifications were issued
for a plane with 50% heavier armament
than the 8 gun planes even before the
Hurricane entered service. Hawker also
experimented with a 4 cannon Hurricane
at the same time (1937) and began
development of what became the
Tornado-Typhoon-Tempest-Fury series.

So basically the writing was on the
wall for the .303 in most situations
even before WW2 began.

Where the RAF felt it was still useful
was in 4 gun turret arrangements, but
here the approach speeds were slower,
and the engagement distances generally
short, and this is where the .303 was
effective. This matches somewhat with
the official, initial BoB fighter
engagement tactic against bombers which
was to approach slowly from astern to
allow maximum firing time on target
up to close range.

blankenship
03-12-2004, 11:25 AM
Realistic guns - specifics...

When realistic guns are checked, I can be in a P-51 and behind a 109 at point-blank range, squeeze a three-second burst and see flashes all over the fuselage, particularly in the cockpit area, and the plane may smoke a bit and fly off on his merry way.

When realistic guns are unchecked, I can pop a German bomber with a one-second burst at one mile out and it blows.