PDA

View Full Version : Aces is me or are the 50's under strength.



frag_bravo
03-15-2004, 01:33 PM
Man I think the 50's are way under strength.

frag_bravo
03-15-2004, 01:33 PM
Man I think the 50's are way under strength.

Korolov
03-15-2004, 01:43 PM
Seem more powerful than the hispano 20mm's to me.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

DamienW
03-15-2004, 01:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by frag_bravo:
Man I think the 50's are way under strength.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely. It sometimes takes as much as 3 BULLETS to down an aircraft. That's bull****. The .50cal should make He-111s explode just by being armed and looking at the pilot menacingly. I hope Oleg will correct that soon.

73GIAP_Milan
03-15-2004, 01:52 PM
under strength depends a bit on the number of .50's installed on your plane...

with 2 it is sometimes insufficient, but in batteries of 4,6 and 8, they SHOULD chew a target up in seconds...

Regards,

Der Tote Baron a.k.a. SK_Black_Knight....
______________________________
Sky Knights Squadron Leader

VW-IceFire
03-15-2004, 01:53 PM
The DM model has changed...even less .50 cals are required to destroy an aircraft by destroying controls, engines, lighting fuel on fire, lighting the engine on fire, and all manners of destruction. On the whole, the DM has been changed to allow for less total structural failures.

You feeling that the .50cal is weaker is probably because you continue to pour fire into an already crippled target that may crash in 20 seconds or may finally crash in a few minutes. Either way he's dead and out of the fight...

This actually emphasizes the strengths of the .50 cal and even the .303 which did less structural damage to the actual airframe (no explosive power) but did serious damage to the internal components.

This is why you can flame a FW190 with .303 machine guns now...

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

frag_bravo
03-15-2004, 01:55 PM
Yes I read where the 50's would just chew up the 109.I had to set unlimited ammo just to kill these dudes.Now I did install aces without any of the Fb patches on a clean install of both games.Could this be it?

Dr.Oktylizer
03-15-2004, 01:56 PM
hihi... yes, f***ing bad modelled .50s!

hey, ever tried MG 131 ? this weapon is useless against everything. What would have happened if Rommel were strafe hit by MG 131 in 1944? Think he woulh have remained unwounded (is there such a word?) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

frag_bravo
03-15-2004, 01:57 PM
ok cool.So just one or two quick pounces and thats it?

_VR_ScorpionWorm
03-15-2004, 01:58 PM
Are you sure you just weren't playing with realistic gunnery off. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

"He went like this, we went like that, I called to Hollywood 'Were'd he go?', Hollywood called back, 'Were'd WHO go'-TOPGUN

Zayets
03-15-2004, 02:00 PM
I tell you one thing.For months, I was thinking fifties are undermodelled and prepared to adjust my firing accordingly. Doing some convergence and shooting only while I was in range I can tell you , it rocks! Big time! Although, I have to agree on the fact that 6 fifties on the P40 do more damage than 8 on the P-47.But that's life.learn to use them as they come. Pilots inputs were not always followed by a better product. They were to busy winning the war.

Zayets out
http://server5.uploadit.org/files/Zayets-iar80pic.jpg

Maple_Tiger
03-15-2004, 02:19 PM
I dont think its just the 50cal's frag_bravo.

It has to do with the new DM of the planes. All in all the game has improved. I mean its more realistic.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid78/pd6c878f0006c224805da6c9645408b41/fb291d3e.jpg

Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

Hristo_
03-15-2004, 03:02 PM
Did you try it offline ?

I was rather annoyed by planes soakind MK108 30mm rounds and still flying happily that I played offline. And there the cannon worked.

So, it seems there is a significant difference between online and offline lethality. It may be packet loss, server settings or million other things.

http://easyweb.globalnet.hr/easyweb/users/ntomlino/uploads/sig.jpg

"I'm not warping, I'm just good ! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif"

LuftLuver
03-15-2004, 04:07 PM
IceFire is right.

I was in a P39 being showered by a Mustang. He didn't get me down and lamented in the chat window that the .50's are weak. What he couldn't see was that my plane was handling so poorly that I could scarcely stay airborne.

In fact, his buddy came by and downed me with a single plink. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

JG27_Arklight
03-15-2004, 04:14 PM
6 or 8 .50's would chew up any aircraft.

All of us who have fired one knows that. lol

Ark

Want morons? Come to the IL-2 Forums and we'll drop them right in your freakin' lap!
------------
2.4C @ 3.6 Default Volt.
ASUS P4C800-E (Rev. 11)
1GB Mushkin PC3500 LvL2 Black @ 2-2-2-5
Radeon 9800XT (Cat. 3.10)
SB Augigy Gamer
Antec True550
Zalman 7000A-CU HSF
4 Case fans/1 120mm Blowhole

SKY_BOSS
03-15-2004, 04:17 PM
Are the 50's under strength. YES. Lots of WWII pilots told about how the 50's would shred the sh*t out of aircraft. Here they seem to bounce off.

http://members.cox.net/ironwarlock/skynew.jpg

JG27_Arklight
03-15-2004, 04:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zayets:
I tell you one thing.For months, I was thinking fifties are undermodelled and prepared to adjust my firing accordingly. Doing some convergence and shooting only while I was in range I can tell you , it rocks! Big time! Although, I have to agree on the fact that 6 fifties on the P40 do more damage than 8 on the P-47.But that's life.learn to use them as they come. Pilots inputs were not always followed by a better product. They were to busy winning the war.

Zayets out
http://server5.uploadit.org/files/Zayets-iar80pic.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



8 HAS TO DO MORE DAMAGE then 6. And yet it seemingly does not.

lol

Ark

Ding ****, the witch is dead!
------------
2.4C @ 3.6 Default Volt.
ASUS P4C800-E (Rev. 11)
1GB Mushkin PC3500 LvL2 Black @ 2-2-2-5
Radeon 9800XT (Cat. 3.10)
SB Augigy Gamer
Antec True550
Zalman 7000A-CU HSF
4 Case fans/1 120mm Blowhole

Capt_Kernel
03-15-2004, 04:26 PM
Yea right! That's a good one.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
Seem more powerful than the hispano 20mm's to me.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://img7.photobucket.com/albums/v18/jsmuz/Manston.jpg

Korolov
03-15-2004, 04:29 PM
Try the .50 cals on Zekes and Franks. Those two will die very quickly from sustained .50 cal bursts. 109s will suffer critical damage but not catastrophic damage. 190s are the same.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

tenmmike
03-15-2004, 05:54 PM
the .50 are just fine .....if you can find a book or written documentation to show that even the us.especaly near the end of the war allso thought they were ia little on the weak side .at the conclusion of wwII the us.navy concluded as much as well and considered the 20mm was equal to 3 .50..i have a few books written exclusily about aeril guns..(fling guns of ww2) and rapid fire) if you look at weight of fire you will see the .50 is at the near bottom from 43 on.........The American Browning .50 M2 is an undistinguished performer, particularly when compared with its closest competitor, the 12.7 mm Berezin. The relatively small incendiary content in the .50 API (0.9 g instead of 2 g) gives the Soviet round a flying start, which it adds to by its usefully higher rate of fire, then finishes off in style by being lighter as well, and thereby almost twice as efficient overall. The Browning also makes an interesting comparison with the Japanese Ho-5, which was basically the M2 slightly scaled up to take 20 mm cartridges.

It may appear that this low score of the .50 M2 is in disagreement with the satisfactory experience the USAAF had with this weapon. The answer to this apparent contradiction is that the .50 M2 proved very effective against fighters and (not too sturdy) bombers, if installed in sufficient numbers. Six or eight guns were specified as standard armament, resulting in a destructive power total of 360 or 480, at the cost of a rather high installed weight. Most American fighters were sufficiently powerful to have a high performance despite this weight penalty. Incidentally, the mediocre efficiency score of the .50 M2 is not only an effect of the low chemical content of its projectiles. Even if only the kinetic energy were considered, the efficiency of this gun would remain inferior to that of the UBS, B-20, ShVAK or Hispano, although better than that of the MK 108 or MG-FFM. To sum up, the preferred US armament fit was effective for its purpose, but not very efficient by comparison with cannon.

A further validation of the calculations is provided by the outcome of tests by the USN, which stated that the 20 mm Hispano was about three times as destructive as the .50 M2. In the above table, the ratio between their scores is 3.3. this and more info may also be found here http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ and here http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-in.html

http://www.2-60inf.com/2-60_crest.gif U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991

SeaFireLIV
03-15-2004, 06:08 PM
This is all very interesting... I`ve noticed talk of this on other threads. So the DM of the aircraft has been increased/made more complex, giving the impression that the guns are weaker?

This would then need more sustained fire on planes and reduce the ability of instant wing-breaks and whole destruction of aircraft.

But it seems (as IceFire and Luftluver said )that aircraft suffer more `surface` damage like aielerons damaged, engine failures, rudder, etc. So the guns ARE effective. Just in a more complex and subtle manner...

Not good news for the flash, big bang people, but good from a realistic point of view.

Fascinating. Can`t wait to try this...

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/storm.jpg
Soon... Very soon....

BfHeFwMe
03-15-2004, 06:16 PM
Problem is you guys have been spoiled with nose guns which are much easier to bear on target at any range. There haven't been that many wing gun equipped planes up till now. Your going to have to explain what ranges your shooting and how you have guns set before anyone can take you serious.

The effects are especially pronounced in spitfires with the outer .303's. Very dificult to hit on target in close. You can fire a burst and not hit a one shot right up close riding a fighters rudder with your prop, the pipper right on center fuselodge. It's all in gun positioning, learn where they're hitting and when, these aren't nose guns.

LuftLuver
03-15-2004, 07:41 PM
I for one like the new DM's. I believe it is much more realistic now. More often than not, your prey will just roll over and auger in.

The PROBLEM is, these 30mm Japanese and Mk108 (also 30mm) German cannons. TYPICALLY, these weapons were installed for attacking bombers and a pilot sporting multiple 30mm cannons would not be spoiling for any dogfight action. There would be too much of a weight penalty.

In the old IL2, gunpods and heavier armament were instant death in a dogfight. In FB, gunpods and heavy weapons in furballs are the norm, as ppl fly around blowing up everything in sight, arcade style. (the Ki84c is a huge offender) Give them more of a weight penalty and this sim would be more fun by the moment.

Give me a 5 minute dogfight with 20mm cannon and mgs ANY DAY. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

DamienW
03-15-2004, 07:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
This is all very interesting... I`ve noticed talk of this on other threads. So the DM of the aircraft has been increased/made more complex, giving the impression that the guns are weaker?

This would then need more sustained fire on planes and reduce the ability of instant wing-breaks and whole destruction of aircraft.

But it seems (as IceFire and Luftluver said )that aircraft suffer more `surface` damage like aielerons damaged, engine failures, rudder, etc. So the guns ARE effective. Just in a more complex and subtle manner...

Not good news for the flash, big bang people, but good from a realistic point of view.

Fascinating. Can`t wait to try this...

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/storm.jpg
Soon... Very soon....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If that is of any indication, seafire, i set up for a few friends a small coop loosely based on Malta, and featuring G50s, Ju-87Bs, Spits MkVbs, and Hurricane MkIIbs. As you can see, mostly rifle-caliber bullets and .50cals (for the G50) were involved. Whereas such a scenario would have led to few casualties in 1.22, here, plane have engine burst in flames, had to crash-land, lost control surfaces, or had their pilot killed. Very few had their wing torn off or were cut in half, except from the Spit's 20mm guns. BUT, on the other hand, the .303s and .50s were deadly, which they were not in 1.22 (at least the .303s). Oh, not in a spectacular way, but planes went down in flames instead of exploding. I don't know about you, but i like it a lot.

pinche_bolillo
03-15-2004, 07:53 PM
the luftwhiner pom pom girls will be along any time now to tell you how the 50s are too strong and it only takes 2 bullets to knock the wings of a fw 190 off.

JG27_Arklight
03-15-2004, 07:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Problem is you guys have been spoiled with nose guns which are much easier to bear on target at any range. There haven't been that many wing gun equipped planes up till now. Your going to have to explain what ranges your shooting and how you have guns set before anyone can take you serious.

The effects are especially pronounced in spitfires with the outer .303's. Very dificult to hit on target in close. You can fire a burst and not hit a one shot right up close riding a fighters rudder with your prop, the pipper right on center fuselodge. It's all in gun positioning, learn where they're hitting and when, these aren't nose guns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Go tell the guys in my squad how to properly aim wing guns...


I want to watch.

LOL

Ark

Ding ****, the witch is dead!
------------
2.4C @ 3.6 Default Volt.
ASUS P4C800-E (Rev. 11)
1GB Mushkin PC3500 LvL2 Black @ 2-2-2-5
Radeon 9800XT (Cat. 3.10)
SB Augigy Gamer
Antec True550
Zalman 7000A-CU HSF
4 Case fans/1 120mm Blowhole

BS87
03-15-2004, 08:22 PM
Spoiled with nose mounted .50s? I thought the only planes with nose mounted .50s were the p38s and p39s, 1 of which we just got?

http://www.geocities.com/bs87cr/Sigfinal1.txt

Obi_Kwiet
03-15-2004, 08:22 PM
I'd say they're powerfull enough for sure, but theyr realy innaccurate. They look like they have a shot gun spread even a close ramge.

mllaneza
03-15-2004, 08:24 PM
One of the first coops I flew in AEP was B-17 escort against a whole random schwarm of Luftwaffe birds. I had a P-47, convergence set to 350m. I caught an Me-210 at juuuuuuuust inside that, maybe 32-330m. He was turning, I nailed him from "above" and the wings didn't so much fall off, as the wings ceased to be attached to anything... the 210 literally fell apart under fire from my .50s.

With wing-mounted guns the convergence setting controls the angle of the bullet stream from each wing so that they... well, "converge" at a specified range. Viewed from above they make a really tall, stretched-out 'X'. A target outside your convergence range might take a few stray rounds in the wingtips so you see some debris and a few hits, but those are single rounds in the very least vulnerable part of the target. Inside your convergence range, you get more hits but the dispersal is much higher and the concentrated killing zone is completely missing - you'll have to get lucky to damage anything important.

For reference, convergence on nose-mounted guns controls the vertical angle so that the arc of the bullet stream crosses your gunsight at a specified range. For guns with a low muzzle velocity such as the 37mm on the P-39, you'll want to set cannon convergence low so the round travels straight and then drops instead of lofting early and falling back - that makes you shoot over a target at point-blank range. I've taken to using 150m in a P-39 (thanks to whomever gave me the idea).

Veteran - Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force. 1993-1951.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
03-15-2004, 08:33 PM
Salute

I guess you would call me one of the biggest defenders of the .50 calibres on these boards.

And the fact is, I think they are pretty well modelled now.

The main reason is that the damage model of several German aircraft has been modified. The 190's now have a complex damage model, and that means that the .50's can get its engine smoking with a good burst.

The .50's will still not tear off a 190 wing unless you get a perfect convergence shot, but they will mess up pilots and engines just fine.

As far as the 109's, I find the .50's will rip them up very easily.

Bombers are more difficult, but that applies to a lot of aircraft weaponry versus bombers. The medium bombers are generally overmodelled in their ability to soak up damage. And some aircraft, especially the Me323 are completely overmodelled. Reports from real pilots who shot these planes down, reveals that they would break up very easily, after only a single burst.

Aaron_GT
03-16-2004, 12:19 AM
I think what was meant that guns on most aircraft, up
to the inclusion of the P47, P40, P51, Hurricane, and
Spitfire, have been nose or wing root mounted, with
the notable exception of the outer guns on the 190A.

With guns mounted close to the centre line there is
less problem with wing shake or flexing dispersing
rounds, less issues with convergence, and less issues
with relatively roll meaning bullets may miss (the outer
guns on the Spitfire I were quite a way out, for
example). So if you can mount guns in the nose,
that's the best place, but it is a lot simpler to
mount guns, or a variety of guns, in the wings.

With regard to the bombers, some have some very
vulnerable spots. The tails come off the Ju52 and
Me323 relatively easily. The He111 is vulnerable
to exploding if hit on the underside of the wing
roots, and to cockpit hits. Blasting from dead six
tends to be ineffective except on the Ju52, though
(or rather it's just not safe enough to sit on the 6
of a 323!). The way defensive gunners and DM is
modelled for the 323 it's a flying take compared
to its historical reputation as a sitting duck.

Mitlov47
03-16-2004, 12:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Problem is you guys have been spoiled with nose guns which are much easier to bear on target at any range. There haven't been that many wing gun equipped planes up till now. Your going to have to explain what ranges your shooting and how you have guns set before anyone can take you serious.

The effects are especially pronounced in spitfires with the outer .303's. Very dificult to hit on target in close. You can fire a burst and not hit a one shot right up close riding a fighters rudder with your prop, the pipper right on center fuselodge. It's all in gun positioning, learn where they're hitting and when, these aren't nose guns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What he said. The four 50s on a P-38 do more damage than the six 50s on a P-51, because all of them are hitting, and all of them are hitting the same spot. With wing-mounted guns, unless you're right at the convergence distance, the bullets are spread all over the enemy's plane.

I've sawed through FW-190 wings no problem with the P-38's 50s, online and off, in AEP.

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

(aka Mitlov on HyperLobby and Ubi)

P-38J -- "A Sorta Fairytale"
P-63C -- "Jackie's Strength"

RAF74_Buzzsaw
03-16-2004, 01:31 AM
Salute

People who suggest that wing mounted guns which are not at convergence range result in hits 'all over the plane' which is the target, are wrong.

What you actually have is TWO streams of bullets. If you look at the mounting of the P-51's guns, you can easily see that each group of 3 is actually closer together than a comparble group of nose mounted guns.

So what should be occurring when the target is not at convergence range, is that there are two streams of bullets hitting the target. Each stream would be the concentrated fire of three .50 calibre guns. Which is not an inconsiderable amount of firepower.

In the case of the Thunderbolt, you have 4 guns per wing, and therefore each stream is equivalent to the firepower in the nose of a 20mm armed 109G6. (A 20mm is less in kinetic energy than produced by two .50's, and the HE power is not much. And the MG131's are less powerful than .50's)

The question is, does the game reflect that type of firepower?

Perhaps not, but at this stage, I am not prepared to make it a huge issue. Sufficient that the .50's can down any German fighter which is hit squarely.

Mitlov47
03-16-2004, 01:34 AM
There is a simple solution to this problem. Its name is "King Cobra."

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

(aka Mitlov on HyperLobby and Ubi)

P-38J -- "A Sorta Fairytale"
P-63C -- "Jackie's Strength"

Charos
03-16-2004, 01:51 AM
As a 109 Driver I can allay any Fears you may have on your 50Cal - Its more than Capable of doing the Job.

Not that I have played Overly Much online but in Ace's I seem to have Noticed alot more Spray and Pray happening - and when that is coming from 12 50Cal from the Two 51s that are 500M away the Sky is full of lead Rain.

Just Today I had to Land with No Elevator or Rudder after 3 Cricles of the Field - http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

My Flight plan now seems more and more like--Takeoff - Climb - Attack - Miss - Get damaged - Fly Home -Land - Rinse Repeat.

I just hope The factory can output More 109s than Im getting Banged up.